Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
add PR request for Ralphie
Adding new request from wikiprojects
Line 1: Line 1:
{{PR-instruct{{Wikipedia:Peer review/Ralphie}}
{{PR-instructions}}
ions}}


__TOC__
__TOC__

Revision as of 21:01, 24 January 2007

{{PR-instruct

Ralphie

Any comments. I just heavily expanded the article. I'm looking to head for GA and eventually FA once Ralphie IV retires in a year. Any comments or questions would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. --MECU≈talk 19:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nmajdan

Good start for the article. Not too far away from GA quality. Some quick suggestions:

  • Who says being a Ralphie Runner is coveted?
    • Removed this. This part was from before I edited it, and I doubt I could find a source for this, though I did remove the other line with this that "they are like any other sport with tryouts" where I do have a source and some information about how they get to become a handler, but I figured this was about Ralphie and putting that in may be a bit excessive. Though it may be needed for FA? (MECU)
  • Is 25 mph normal for a female bison, or does the university have some special criteria for determining the next Ralphie?
    • According to American bison, they can run up to 35 mph, so 25 isn't special. I do have a source that says Ralphie IV was clocked at 20 seconds to run from one endzone to another, doing the conversion math that comes out to about 25 mph. I don't know if they have some special criteria. I think just getting one donated free is half the battle as buying one would be cost prohibitive. Ralphie IV is set to retire in a year so they should be getting another one ready so there will likely be information about that soon. (MECU)
  • Need references in the "Pre Ralphie era" section. Mainly the last sentence. Also in the 2nd para in that section.
    • Done (MECU)
  • The sentence "Live buffaloes continued to make appearances at CU games irregularly" could use some help. I understand what you're saying but having the word continued and irregulary just throws it off. Maybe something like "Live buffaloes continued to make sporadic appearances at CU games."
    • Agreed. I like using sporadic. (MECU)
  • First sentence in Ralphie II doesn't make sense.
    • I added a verb, that should help (I added "made her debut") (MECU)
  • There isn't a lot of citations for the older material. I'd like to see a source for the second sentence in Ralphie III.
    • Done. (MECU)
  • Is there a wikilink for Senator Lacy?
    • Nope, though I'll leave it redlinked since a state senator is worthy of an article, especially since she passed this important resolution! (MECU)
  • Fix the hypens inside of the quote template.
    • I'm not sure exactly where you mean, but there was -- above the quote and I changed into a long dash. Is that what you meant? (MECU)
      • Hmmm..... I could've sworn you had 13-year-old in the second WHEREAS when I reviewed it. But now its just 13yearold. Nevertheless, I think it needs spaces or hypens.--NMajdan•talk
  • Facts in the first para in Ralphie IV needs to be cited.
    • I shall work on this. All that will be referenced! (MECU)
  • After "1,300 pounds" please provide the metric equivalent per MOS.
    • Done, thanks. (MECU)
      • Per WP:MOSNUM, you should use the same level of precision for these two numbers. You use 1,300 pounds so instead of 589.67 kilograms, you should probably round that to 590. Also, the measurement in parentheses should be abbreviated, so change it to kg. (See here.)-NMajdan•talk
  • "The mere existence of Ralphie causes fear in opposing players." I don't know about that sentence from an encyclopedic point-of-view. The players were scared cause its a 1300 pound wild animal and they don't want to be in front of it.--NMajdan•talk 21:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you look at the source for that, the article talks about how some of the opposing players were talking about how they wouldn't go near her at the game, before they had even seen her! I would call that "the existence causes fear", but I do see your point. I guess it's a little homerism on my part, but I do think the sentence can be reworked into something more encyclopedic. Perhaps "Players have stated they were afraid of being run over by Ralphie. Some are even afraid to approach her." Using the same cite? It would tie better with the next sentence that someone actually did get runover. --MECU≈talk 01:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your great comments Nmajdan! --MECU≈talk 01:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johntex

I am curious as to who pays for the upkeep for Ralphie. Does it come out of the athletic department funds? Buying a bison is not that expensive. A calf costs between $1,500 and $2,500 which is about twice the cost of a steer.[1] They eat mostly grass. In fact, they eat a higher percentage of grass than any other large grazer - the domesticated cow requires a higher percentage of nutrient rich feed.[2] You do need a fair amount of space for grazing, obviously.

So, I am thinking the major costs would be in things like vet visits, transportation, etc. In the case of UT's Bevo, the rancher who owns the Longhorn steer offers the steer for free to UT and the rancher still keeps the steer when the steer is not appearing at functions. As far as I know, they pay for all the upkeep and vet bills etc. I think the Silver Spurs pay for the transportation to games and the like - probably with money from donations and appearance fees.

Anyway, I mention all this because it might enhance the article to know more about the financing behind Ralphie.

It is a good article. Keep up the good work. Johntex\talk 05:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this is already addressed, although not to the level of detail you provided above, in the article. Under Ralphie IV, the last paragraph talks about the Ralphie Fund started in 2002 by Stromberg who donated her life savings when she passed. More detailed information about her (Ralphie, not Stromberg) care would improve the article though. --MECU≈talk 13:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ions}}

Requests

Ralphie

Any comments. I just heavily expanded the article. I'm looking to head for GA and eventually FA once Ralphie IV retires in a year. Any comments or questions would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. --MECU≈talk 19:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nmajdan

Good start for the article. Not too far away from GA quality. Some quick suggestions:

  • Who says being a Ralphie Runner is coveted?
    • Removed this. This part was from before I edited it, and I doubt I could find a source for this, though I did remove the other line with this that "they are like any other sport with tryouts" where I do have a source and some information about how they get to become a handler, but I figured this was about Ralphie and putting that in may be a bit excessive. Though it may be needed for FA? (MECU)
  • Is 25 mph normal for a female bison, or does the university have some special criteria for determining the next Ralphie?
    • According to American bison, they can run up to 35 mph, so 25 isn't special. I do have a source that says Ralphie IV was clocked at 20 seconds to run from one endzone to another, doing the conversion math that comes out to about 25 mph. I don't know if they have some special criteria. I think just getting one donated free is half the battle as buying one would be cost prohibitive. Ralphie IV is set to retire in a year so they should be getting another one ready so there will likely be information about that soon. (MECU)
  • Need references in the "Pre Ralphie era" section. Mainly the last sentence. Also in the 2nd para in that section.
    • Done (MECU)
  • The sentence "Live buffaloes continued to make appearances at CU games irregularly" could use some help. I understand what you're saying but having the word continued and irregulary just throws it off. Maybe something like "Live buffaloes continued to make sporadic appearances at CU games."
    • Agreed. I like using sporadic. (MECU)
  • First sentence in Ralphie II doesn't make sense.
    • I added a verb, that should help (I added "made her debut") (MECU)
  • There isn't a lot of citations for the older material. I'd like to see a source for the second sentence in Ralphie III.
    • Done. (MECU)
  • Is there a wikilink for Senator Lacy?
    • Nope, though I'll leave it redlinked since a state senator is worthy of an article, especially since she passed this important resolution! (MECU)
  • Fix the hypens inside of the quote template.
    • I'm not sure exactly where you mean, but there was -- above the quote and I changed into a long dash. Is that what you meant? (MECU)
      • Hmmm..... I could've sworn you had 13-year-old in the second WHEREAS when I reviewed it. But now its just 13yearold. Nevertheless, I think it needs spaces or hypens.--NMajdan•talk
  • Facts in the first para in Ralphie IV needs to be cited.
    • I shall work on this. All that will be referenced! (MECU)
  • After "1,300 pounds" please provide the metric equivalent per MOS.
    • Done, thanks. (MECU)
      • Per WP:MOSNUM, you should use the same level of precision for these two numbers. You use 1,300 pounds so instead of 589.67 kilograms, you should probably round that to 590. Also, the measurement in parentheses should be abbreviated, so change it to kg. (See here.)-NMajdan•talk
  • "The mere existence of Ralphie causes fear in opposing players." I don't know about that sentence from an encyclopedic point-of-view. The players were scared cause its a 1300 pound wild animal and they don't want to be in front of it.--NMajdan•talk 21:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you look at the source for that, the article talks about how some of the opposing players were talking about how they wouldn't go near her at the game, before they had even seen her! I would call that "the existence causes fear", but I do see your point. I guess it's a little homerism on my part, but I do think the sentence can be reworked into something more encyclopedic. Perhaps "Players have stated they were afraid of being run over by Ralphie. Some are even afraid to approach her." Using the same cite? It would tie better with the next sentence that someone actually did get runover. --MECU≈talk 01:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your great comments Nmajdan! --MECU≈talk 01:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johntex

I am curious as to who pays for the upkeep for Ralphie. Does it come out of the athletic department funds? Buying a bison is not that expensive. A calf costs between $1,500 and $2,500 which is about twice the cost of a steer.[3] They eat mostly grass. In fact, they eat a higher percentage of grass than any other large grazer - the domesticated cow requires a higher percentage of nutrient rich feed.[4] You do need a fair amount of space for grazing, obviously.

So, I am thinking the major costs would be in things like vet visits, transportation, etc. In the case of UT's Bevo, the rancher who owns the Longhorn steer offers the steer for free to UT and the rancher still keeps the steer when the steer is not appearing at functions. As far as I know, they pay for all the upkeep and vet bills etc. I think the Silver Spurs pay for the transportation to games and the like - probably with money from donations and appearance fees.

Anyway, I mention all this because it might enhance the article to know more about the financing behind Ralphie.

It is a good article. Keep up the good work. Johntex\talk 05:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this is already addressed, although not to the level of detail you provided above, in the article. Under Ralphie IV, the last paragraph talks about the Ralphie Fund started in 2002 by Stromberg who donated her life savings when she passed. More detailed information about her (Ralphie, not Stromberg) care would improve the article though. --MECU≈talk 13:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bart King

Bart King was the greatest American cricketer ever. This article has been Peer Reviewed and listed as a Good Article. It just received a thorough copy edit. I'd like to solicit comments on one more peer review before listing at as an FAC. Any help is greatly appreciated.--Eva bd 18:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would switch the placement of the pics, the infobox pic is supposed to show what the person looks like. You can barely see his face, the action pic should be down somewhere in the text. It would go nicely in a section describing his playing style or accomplishments. Quadzilla99 02:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Quadzilla. This has been changed. I've put a head shot in the infobox.--Eva bd 19:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Might go great in angling section. Quadzilla99 03:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. The batting pictures show his face a little bit better, but I'll try and find a decent head shot of the guy. Thanks for the tip.--Eva bd 12:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've sent off an e-mail to the CC Morris Cricket Library to see if they have any more images of King--especially a head shot. There is one on Cricinfo, but I'd rather not try and justify a fair use image for the infobox. I'll keep ya'll posted.--Eva bd 12:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having a single subsection (3.1 The "angler") is bad style. Promote the section, or merge with parent.
  • =Teams= subsections not needed. Too small
  • at least one first-class bowling record name the record
  • He competed with and succeeded against the best cricketers in the world from England and Australia -- choppy -- there are many such examples in the text where the sentences do not flow.
  • likeable --> affable
  • Belmont Cricket Club image should be right-aligned
  • and rolled very fast --> odd phrasing for a even person familiar with cricketing terms
  • If possible a table of Kings scores vs each team would be a value addition.
  • A chart of his scores over a period of time would be useful too.
  • were nothing remarkable --> use postive tone

=Nichalp «Talk»= 12:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions Nichalp! I've addressed the ones that I can, mostly involving formatting and minor bits. The tables and charts are beyond me. I'll see if someone at WP:CRIC can help.--Eva bd 00:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A table has now been started, and I've asked Raven4x4x for help in making a chart of the scores. That should take care of all of Nichalp's concerns, unless you can provide more instances of choppiness in the prose. Thanks!--Eva bd 13:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would look more professional if you could stub the red links. PS the graphs and stats need to be added. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments
  • The statistics information should come after =Achievements and legacy= See Adam Gilchrist
  • King toured England with the Philadelphians a third time in 1908. The first match that was played was against South Wales in Cardiff. The Philadelphians won by 36 behind the bowling of King and Ranji Hordern. The pair took all 20 wickets of the Welsh side.[17] The first-class matches began with Worcestershire on July 9. -- choppy + the a flow needed when starting a new section
  • King is also noted for holding the bowling record against Canada --> first sentence should be an introductory one
  • =Teams= convert to a table and add in =Cricketing career=

=Nichalp «Talk»= 04:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks again, Nichalp. I've tackled all your suggestions save the last. I am useless at making tables, so if you could create the said table for the team info, that would be great. Otherwise, any other critiques you can offer are most welcome. Thanks.--Eva bd 23:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newcomb ball

I've done about as much as I can on this for now and would like some comments on possible improvements. There aren't a lot of sources online. In working on this, I get the impression that the game is probably much more significant than I thought (not hard, given that I thought it was kid's volleyball!) There is some speculation that it was a significant influence in the development of volleyball (I would have assumed that the opposite was the case) and the significance of the game in the development of women's team sports seems to be of some significance. I am not sure I have reflected this in the article. Any suggestions/edits would be really appreciated. Wikipeterproject 12:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments:
    • "The object being..." - very awkward sentence. Can't it be rephrased simpler?
    • "shall not constitute a fould" - foul?
    • "By this time The Spalding sports equipment company" lower case the
    • ageement - needs r
    • "The Rules" rather long section, we don't need to be a thorough rulesbook. A paragraph covering the most important ones should suffice.
    • "In circa" - awkward
    • Mexico[7], China[8], - ref after comma
    • "is as follows:" - last 2 words redundant
    • Was the Division Line just a rope, or a net? Later rules seem to specify a net.
    • Are later rules a quotation? If so, use quote marks and cite.
    • "a teams wins a point," - team
    • Why is Newcomb ball no longer played competively? Was it actually ever played competitively? Could use more on how the sport became less popular.
    • "named after Sophie Newcomb College" - this is an important point, and should be in the early article, probably the header, not relegated to a footnote.
    • "was fist coined" - first
    • Some terms are in quotes the first time they are introduced ("Division Line"), some not (Captain, Boundary Lines)
    • "size 1 for grammar grades and size 2 for " - what is a "size" for a ball?
    • "from the Division Line ." remove space before .
    • Did anyone comment on the fact the Rules refer to players as "he", when the game was intended for women? Or was it so intended?
    • " los of time" - loss?
    • Stepping on the court was a foul? How's that?
    • "tha ball." - the -- AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Riggs Stephenson

I made Riggs Stephenson nearly a month ago because I thought it would be excellent to showcase at DYK. It's a ~16KB article that is properly referenced, has an image, and is written in fairly decent prose. I want some second opinions on this article, as I am considering possibly expanding it and bringing it to GA. Thanks! Nishkid64 01:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Activism at Ohio Wesleyan University

I am trying to generate more feedback on the article to improve it and ultimately promote it to a good article status. Any suggestions will be greatly appreciated!

LaSaltarella 04:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Pit and the Pendulum (1961 film)

I started this article from scratch, originally as a stub, in June of 2006. I've been gradually researching and updating the article since that time. Its been a "B" status article for some time now and I think it may currently meet the criteria for a Good Article. But I'd like others to take a look and suggest any possible improvements before I nominate it for GA. I've pretty much exhausted my various reference works...if someone could add any additional sourced details to the article regarding the film's production phase it would be appreciated.-Hal Raglan 20:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trebor

  • for the next several years - I think "next" is implied; nothing else would make sense. "Several" is a bit vague, so perhaps more detail on timescale.
  • 16th Century Spain - rather blunt start. Incorporate the setting into full prose.
  • Although they are mentioned in the intro, I would wikilink and give the full name of the actors within the brackets. It just makes it easier to associate character and actor.
  • There could be more wikilinking within the synopsis and perhaps the section as a whole could be trimmed slightly.
  • The first part of production (The box office success...) isn't actually to do with the production of the film, so should probably be moved to response.
  • Again, wikilink the actors in the Cast section (it's a pretty standard thing to do).
    • I understand your point, but the actors are already wikilinked in the infobox, lead paragraphs, and "Synopsis" section. I think to wikilink them again here would simply be redundant. If you really think this might be an issue for other editors, let me know.-Hal Raglan 21:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • With few exceptions, the majority of the film’s reviews - seems a bit redundant to say there were exceptions and also that the majority were positive - one implies the other. I'd cut the first three words.
  • Why has "uncredited" got a [sic]?

This is pretty good at the moment and fairly well-referenced. I'm not particularly involved with the GA process, but I reckon this stands a good chance. A bit of tidying and a copyedit should make sure of it. Good work. Trebor 20:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did a more detailed read through and came up with a few things:
  • Other sources, including Corman himself, have said that the film's budget was in fact approximately $300,000, nearly the same as for House - I don't like the "in fact", it sounds a bit conversation-like. Also, the sentence follows a very similar form to the previous one (budget was so-and-so, nearly so-and-so of House); it might be nicer to change the form a little.
  • horrific finale - I'm nit-picking, but isn't horrific a bit POV.
    • I think its borderline POV. The intent of the finale is clearly to be horrific. Removing the offending word, as I can't think of any other way to write this w/out being equally POV, is probably the best course of action.-Hal Raglan 21:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Filming went fairly smoothly without any major problems - bit of redundancy, "fairly smoothly" implies "no major problems" and vice versa.
  • It was determined the best way to film the flashbacks would be in monochrome - passive voice and a bit wordy; could probably be simplified.
  • constructed "from scratch" - the quotation marks suggest it's a quotation which I don't think it is. If it isn't, perhaps something less slangy could be used.
  • these treasure troves - odd way to describe them, perhaps POV.
  • The film’s pressbook claimed - claimed is a word to avoid per this.
  • The film’s critical reputation has continued to grow over the years and it is now generally held to be a classic of the genre - definitely needs a reference if it's to be included.
  • There are a few sentences starting with conjunctions ("and" or "but"), which perhaps could be changed. I personally dislike them, but they are much more accepted these days; I don't know if it would count as poor prose, so you can take or leave this suggestion.
Having read through this article in more detail, I've upgraded my opinion of it to "very good". Trebor 21:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also:

Supernumerary

  • Please use <br/> in the infobox instead of ";" and ",".
  • "a young Englishman's visit to a forbidding castle to investigate his sister's mysterious death." Rephrase to avoid the repetition of "to". I suggest a who clause.
  • "immediately following Corman’s House of Usher (1960)" This naturally refers to the nearest noun, which is not what you want. I suggest rephrasing to make it clearer and to eliminate the parenthetical (perhaps with "released the year before" or a more specific measurement).
  • "in order to find out" Redundant and colloquial.
  • I don't think "death" should be wikilinked, and I am iffy on "castle".
  • "having died from a rare blood disorder." Maybe change "having died from" to just "dying from"
  • "However, it is soon revealed that Elizabeth had become obsessed with the various torture devices located in the basement of the castle and one day locked herself into an iron maiden, having gone insane." Avoid passive voice. Move the "having gone insane" to earlier to make it clear why she locked herself in. Is "various" needed?
  • "Francis, having noted that Nicholas appears to be feeling guilty regarding Elizabeth’s death, is offered a lengthy explanation by Catherine." Avoid passive! You have a clause larger than the main clause separating the subject and verb. Using active voice solves this problem.
  • "Their father was Sebastian Medina" Their goes back to Francis and Catherine here.
  • "suddenly began hitting" and "then began torturing" Avoid repeating "began".
  • "directly in front of Nicholas’s eyes" Drop "directly".
  • ' "But the doctor tells Nicholas that "if Elizabeth Medina walks these corridors, it is her spirit and not her living self." ' I dislike using "but" to start a sentence. Try a good "however" or "nevertheless".
  • "with one of her rings found in the keyboard." I don't think this clause works, I'd say change it to "and one of her ...".
  • "That night, Nicholas, now on the very edge of sanity, hears his wife calling him." Maybe excessive commas.
  • "hears his wife calling him. He follows her ghostly voice down to the torture chamber." These two sentences can be easily combined by just saying he follows her voice (or he is summoned by her voice).
  • "Nicholas then approaches Elizabeth and promises he will torture her horribly." Needs a comma.
  • "pendulum/razor" Avoid using a slash. Perhaps "razor-tipped pendulum"?
  • "Catherine arrives just in time with a servant. After a brief fight, Nicholas falls to his death and Francis is removed from the torture device." The servant is not important, so cut him. You need a comma for the second sentence.
    • mentioning the servant is important, because it needs to be explained how and why Nicholas falls to his death. He doesn't fight Catherine.-Hal Raglan 02:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh! So he fights the servant? I just thought that she showed up with a servant. I didn't see the servant mentioned after that and assumed the fight was between him and Catherine.--Supernumerary 02:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Seriously? I'm sorry, this is the first time I've laughed during this peer review. If you honestly believe this is confusingly written, I'll need to clarify this plot point. I suppose I could change the second sentence to "After a brief fight with the servant..."-Hal Raglan 02:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Pit and the Pendulum was announced in August 1960 and filming began the first week of January, 1961." Comma!
  • "Williams' " You need to standardize to either "s's" or "s' ".
  • "According to Lucy Chase Williams' book, The Complete Films of Vincent Price, the shooting schedule was fifteen days with an additional day set aside for cast rehearsals, and the film’s budget was almost $1 million." Again comma. Remove the parenthetical by simply saying "with an additional day for cast rehearsals".
  • "$300,000." I'm not sure if you need to make it clear that it is US$. Though in the infobox you should.
  • "that barely resembled Poe, with only the finale having any similarity at all to the original short story on which the film was based." Redundant.
    • I see nothing redundant about specifically mentioning what aspect of the story was true to Poe's tale.-Hal Raglan 02:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You say that it barely resembles Poe, and then you say that the only similarity is the finale. I don't see why you wouldn't just say that it only resembles the Poe story during the finale. Doesn't that imply that it barely resembled Poe's story?--Supernumerary 02:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, the implication would indeed be there if I rewrote the sentence in the way you suggest. However, my personal preference is to keep it the way it is. I honestly don't find anything wrong with first noting that the narrative barely resembles Poe, then specifically detailing the small part of the film that does directly correspond to the short story. It doesn't seem redundant to me. I've incorporated many of your very helpful suggestions, but I just don't agree with you on this one.-Hal Raglan 02:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Price suggested numerous dialogue line changes himself for his character." Move or drop the "himself".
  • "Francis Barnard is first introduced to Nicholas and asks about loud, strange noises he has just heard." Awkward. Maybe use a when clause?
  • "dialogue would have ruined the power of the scene" Should just be "would".
  • "with Panavision cameras and lenses." I'm not sure how important what cameras and lenses they used.
    • probably not important; another editor had inserted this info into the text and, since the Corman quote referenced camerawork, I felt this was an appropriate place for the detail. I may simply delete this.-Hal Raglan 00:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with the major technicians involved." Can probably drop "involved".
  • "Director of Photography Floyd Crosby and Art Director Daniel Haller" Wikilink "Director of Photography" and "Art Director", and check if they two people have articles.
  • "attempted to shoot them in a manner that would convey to the audience" I think "attempted to shoot them to convey to the audience" works just as well with fewer words, but I don't like the repetition of "to". I have no preference really.
  • "The sequences were then printed on blue-tinted stock which was subsequently toned red during development, effectively producing a two-tone image." Add some wikilinks.
  • "The image was then run through an optical printer where the edges were vignetted and a twisted linear distortion was introduced." Wikilink "optical printer" and "vignetted".
  • I don't see how wide-angle lenses help convey hysteria.
  • "Except for a brief exterior prologue filmed on the Palos Verdes coast, featuring Kerr's arrival to the castle by coach, the entire production was shot in four sound stages at the California Studios in Hollywood." "featuring Kerr's arrival to the castle by coach" goes back to "the Palos Verdes coast"; reword. Also is "featuring" the right word? Maybe "showing" is better.
    • changed to "The film's brief exterior prologue showing Kerr's arrival to the castle was filmed on the Palos Verdes coast. The rest of the production was shot in four interior sound stages at the California Studios in Hollywood."
  • "all of which were dusty, discarded pieces left over from old Universal productions." There's no way to fix the ambiguity here (that always bothers me), but you could drop "left over from old Universal productions".
  • "he found gigantic stairways and stone wall units that were available" "that were available" is superfluous.
  • "Haller selected and rented numerous pieces" Is "selected" needed?
  • "film were subsequently constructed" Is "subsequently" necessary?
  • "The film’s pressbook noted that the pendulum utilized in the movie was eighteen feet long, with a realistic rubber cutting blade, and weighed over a ton." Is "utilized in the movie" necessary? I don't think the commas are needed, and you might want to move "weighed over a ton" to earlier.
  • "The pendulum was rigged from the top of the sound stage and suspended thirty-five feet in the air." Why not just "The pendulum was rigged from the top of the sound stage thirty-five feet from the floor."? Or am I misinterpreting "suspended"?
  • No, you're not misinterpreting...rewrote-Hal Raglan 01:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and a 40 mm Panavision wide-angle lens used" maybe "equipped with a 40 mm Panavision wide-angle lens"
  • "These areas were filled in later by printing-in process extensions of the set, doubling it's size onscreen." Wikilink "printing-in process extensions" and change "it's" to "its".
  • "Some, however, thought his acting overly theatrical and damaging to the film's mood." The some here needs to be specified with a source.
  • "so after the filming was completed he had all of her dialogue dubbed by a different actress." Why not just "so he had all of her dialogue dubbed by a different actress"?
  • "Anders'" should be "Anders's"
  • "Anders' role as Price's (much younger) sister was one of several appearances she made in AIP productions, most of them directed by Corman." Did Corman direct most AIP productions, or did he direct most of her appearances? (I see that it is later clarified, but fix this nonetheless.)
  • "Other cast: Patrick Westwood as Maximillian, Lynette Bernay as Maria, Larry Turner as Nicholas as child, Mary Menzies as Isabella, Charles Victor as Bartolome." Who are these characters?
    • Nicholas as child, Isabella, and Bartolome are all mentioned in the synopsis. Maximillian was a servant and Maria was a maid. All five roles are bit parts. I'll add brief descriptors in the Cast Section to explain who Maximillian and Maria were.-Hal Raglan 01:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Prior to the start of filming, Corman had set aside one day of rehearsals with his cast. "Previously, I had painstakingly rehearsed the actors so there was complete understanding as to what each was to accomplish in each scene. This is most important; there is nothing worse than to be on the set and ready to roll, only to find that director and actor have different views as to how the scene is to be done. Thanks to pre-production planning and rehearsals, there was no time wasted on the set in haggling and making decisions." ' Didn't you already talk about this before the cast section?
  • "$2,000,000 in domestic (U.S. and Canada)" This is a case where I think you really should clarify that it is US dollars.
  • "peccadilloes" I sadly think that most people do not know what "peccadilloes" means, and that you might want to wikitionary/wikipedia link it.
  • "near to burlesquing the role." Again "burlesquing" might have to be linked.
  • "While noting that the film was “marginally less successful” than House of Usher," Should mention that this is erroneous.
    • I don't think he was referring to box office success.-Hal Raglan 01:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thing is that earlier it says that the film was both a better box office success and a better critical success. What was he referring to?--Supernumerary 02:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • He was referring to the film's overall quality. His comment indicates that he personally didn't believe Pit was on quite the same level as House. That's why he says "marginally less successful". As this is one critic's opinion, I don't believe this conflicts with the earlier statement. If every critic felt this way, obviously the earlier statement would not be accurate.-Hal Raglan 03:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Phil Hardy’s The Aurum Film Encyclopedia: Horror observed" Wikilink the book?
    • I've been thinking about doing this for a long time. It is a major film reference work and needs a wikipedia article. I'll work on this later and eventually wikilink it.-Hal Raglan 01:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The response section seems to just heap praise on the film. I see that it is balanced by negative reviews, but consider cutting any of the less important/repetitive reviews.
    • My personal preference for "Response" sections is that they have as many notable positive and negative critical reactions as possible. I'll take another look here and remove what I can.-Hal Raglan 01:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's standard to have all film guide and rotten tomatoes links in the external links section.
  • It looks good overall and should easily pass GA criteria.--Supernumerary 00:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Rolling Thunder

Rounding out work on this article and would appreciate any critical input. RM Gillespie 11:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin

A couple very minor editorial notes before actually reading the article:

  • The plural for "p" (as in pages) is "pp", and not, as far as I know, "pps". The latest edition of the Chicago Manual of Style recommends not using "p" or "pp" at all, since it's understood that the numbers refer to pages, but that choice is up to you.
  • Page ranges in your notes and date ranges in your book titles should be en dashes rather than hypens, but no one will ever care except me. ;-)
  • Your list of notes is long enough that they probably should be made smaller, using the standard trick.

That's it for now from the overly nitpicky department. —Kevin 14:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also I notice that there are several assertions within the notes, such as "Contrary to opinion, the U.S. public still supported the American effort..." or "The most accurate description of the incidents is...." These sorts of things have to be cited as well, as you have done with some other notes. —Kevin 15:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated

Kirill Lokshin

Looks quite good; a few points to work on, though:

  • The lead should be longer; about 2–4 paragraphs for an article of this size is appropriate.
  • Everything cited in the notes should appear in the full list of sources. This will also allow you to remove the bibliographical information from the notes in favor of short-form citation throughout.
  • The final paragraph of the article could use some editing for tone. Judgemental wording ("enviable", "tragic", etc.) is probably best avoided.

Kirill Lokshin 02:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Randy J. Ray

I went in and wiki-fied dates. While there, I re-did some links to specific aircraft to keep a consistent style throughout, and while I was at it I changed all the "pps." to "pp.". Rjray 02:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PocklingtonDan

  • I think I read somewhere that articles entitled "Operation X" are frowned upon because they inherently cover only one side of the conflict. Is there an alternative non-combatant-specific term that oculd be used instead here?
  • List of cites is excellent, so you are to be commended on that
  • Acronyms are overused. I know it is handy to use a phrase once, assign it an acronym, and thereafter use the acronym, but I feel you have overused this. Quite apart from it being good to refer to a thing using a variety of terms for reader interest, if you forget what an acronym means, you have to scroll up to find out. I would especially avoid using acronyms in section headers, and I would introduce each term using its full name at least once per section in case someone clicks down fromt he TOC without having read the sections above it, especially since many are clearly USMIL acronyms I for one am not familiar with
  • I would try and balance the account with more Vietnamese sources, since almost all (maybe absolutely all?) your sources are western.

Generally, though, a very impressive article - PocklingtonDan 08:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the title goes, I suspect there isn't a better one, since this isn't really a typical battle at some particular location, but rather a particular sub-type/phase of the broader bombing campaign against North Vietnam. I've never seen this particular effort given a name other than Rolling Thunder, in any case. Kirill Lokshin 10:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Crisp

A highly celebrated First World War hero and holder of the Victoria Cross. Another article I have worked extensively on recently and would appreciate some feedback for future work required.--Jackyd101 22:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Lokshin

Quite good. Suggestions, in no particular order:

  • The lead should be expanded to at least two paragraphs. As it is, it's not really adequate as a summary of the article.
  • The use of "jr" and "sr" ought to be looked at. I would have expected these to be both capitalized and followed by a period; is this not the case in British English?
  • The references section should contain everything cited in the article.
  • Maybe put the citations directly at the end of the Victoria Cross section (in somewhat smaller boxes, even)?
  • As usual, any other images available? The ships involved, perhaps?

Kirill Lokshin 04:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated

PocklingtonDan

  • "tiny vessel" - wiki likes quantification - can we say "tiny (just 20ft)" or similar instead? Also, perhaps parentheses what a smack is - I'd never come across one before and it seems unfortunate to have to divert to another article to find out when you've only just started reading
  • "self-sacrifice in the face of overwhelming odds" seems too POV and bias without a cite
  • I know finding cites for this must be difficult for a relatively obscure figure, but I would still like to see more cites generally if possible
  • "the son of Arthur Soanes,[13] one of the victims of this incident, later claimed to have contacted his father through his powers as a spiritual medium and reported this version of events as fact" - I'm not sure a spiritual medium should be cited as a reason to believe a certain course of events!!
  • Other that that, I found it a fascinating read. Well done - PocklingtonDan 09:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: I removed the "tiny" and changed the sentance about the self-sacrifice to include a cited quote (althoug I have read that it isn't a good idea to cite things in the introduction). I have also added more citation generally although as mentioned, finding sources is very hard, much help was provided by a user in A-Class Review. Two replies here, firstly I couldn't find a way to slip in information about the nature of a smack without using a footnote, which is no less labour intensive than using a wikilink. As smack is a necessary technical term which is not related to the article itself, perhaps a link is the best way to go. Also, the spritual medium is not intended as the source for the event, the cited book does that. The medium is simply an interesting story related to the events, which is also cited. Thankyou for your review.--Jackyd101 00:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, its looking really good to me - Cheers - PocklingtonDan (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Gascoigne Robinson

A Royal Navy admiral, First World War hero and Victoria Cross holder. I've recently greatly expanded, organised and developed this article and would be interested to know where to go from here with it. --Jackyd101 22:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Lokshin

Quite good; a number of points to work on, though:

  • Citation! The article is rather undercited, at the moment; much of the narrative can't readily be tied to any particular source.
  • The awards should either be worked into a normal prose paragraph or moved to the infobox. I would suggest the former.
  • The references need to be formatted properly, and should include everything cited in the article. I would also suggest moving the Victoria Cross Reference bit into the list.
  • The lead section can probably stand to be expanded to two paragraphs, to give a somewhat more detailed summary of the article.
  • Are there any other images that could be used here? A marked-up map of Gallipoli may be useful.

Keep up the good work! Kirill Lokshin 03:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've followed the advice above, the only exception being with the references, as I don't have all of them. Do you have any further comments?--Jackyd101 23:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated

PocklingtonDan

  • "underfire" in the lead para, should this be "under fire" or is "underfire" ana ccepted term?
  • a "string of daring operations" sounds POV and biased without a cite
  • "forceful and diligent officer who conducted himself with meritorious service " likewise
  • The map I'm not happy with, I can't identify what part of Turkey I'm looking at there, and at the same time th exact area of Robinson's operationg is unclear - the map is at the wrong scale. I would add a single "magnifying glass" map simultaneously showing several zoon levels of which portion of turkey we are looking at and also a closeup of the exact area of operation, or else two or more separate maps.
  • I'd like to see more cites. I know there is not a lot of information in the public domain on relatively obscure figures but all of the statements in the article must be based on something read somewhere,a nd should be able to be cited

Generally a fine article though on a person (and indeed series of events) i previously knew nothing about. Well done - PocklingtonDan 09:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:OK, I've tried to sort this out, but I have a few questions here. 1) I'm sure that its not recommended to cite things in the introduction, since the remainder of the article should bear out statements made there. I've tried to cite the things you highlighted but I didn't want to overload the section. 2)The map was something I pulled off Wikimedia Commons as it seemed the best for this purpose. I don't have the first idea how to create a map such as you described, did you have a particular one in mind when you suggested it? I tried to label it a bit better though. 3) I don't see any major controversies which are uncited, if you see some outside the introduction, please let me know. The main problem here is that the article is based largely on a single secondary and some small primary sources due to a paucity of information. However, there isn't a lot I can do about that. Thankyou for your review.--Jackyd101 01:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Donne

This is an article that I've been working on recently, with the goal of achieving a GA aticle, or maybe even an FA. I admit that there is a lot of work that needs to be done. More information and more citations are obviously necessary. I'd like some feedback on how to proceed with developing the article (id est, how to structure the sections, whether some of the images are really appropriate, what to do with the trivia section, etc.). Galanskov 19:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trebor

My general impression of the first section:

  • Eventually he would become - be more specific, say at which age or in which year.
  • Don't wikilink years on their own; they very rarely add anything.
  • who avoided unwelcome government attention - what of it? Seems a bit of an odd thing to say, so needs a bit of expansion.
  • leaving the responsibility of raising his son to his wife, Elizabeth Jones. His mother, also from a noted Catholic family, was the - was Jones John Donne Junior's mother? It's not explicit. "His" could also refer to either the father or the son. Rephrase it to make it clearer.
  • One of Donne's maternal great-grandmothers was a sister of Thomas More, the Catholic martyr and author of Utopia, whom Henry VIII had beheaded for his refusal to accept Henry as the leader of his faith - a bit of an obscure link, which may be best removed. The background information on More is particularly out-of-place.
  • Actually, the whole section on his family could do with tying more clearly to Donne. At the moment, it seems like background info is a bit of an aside.
  • he was accepted as a member of Thavies Inn -as Thavies Inn is redlinked, it'd be useful to know a little more about what it is, and what being a member means.
  • in the legal area of London - again, some expansion on what this means would be preferable.
  • we know that he fought - using "we" shouold be avoided; see here.

The prose could do with some work, and the references decrease later on in the article which may be a problem. The images look good, but the caption for Pyford could be better - I don't like the way it's instructing the reader to note something. The structure is quite tricky as it'd be fairly hard to separate personal and profession life (as is often done). The trivia section is always quite a hard one to deal with; if it's relevant or noteworthy then try to merge somewhere else in the article, or else just remove (I'll leave the judging to you). It's coming along nicely so far; good work. Trebor 21:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou

Nicely done, but in some sections under-cited and IMO with a POV tone throughout the article. This is my review:

  • "Donne came from a Roman Catholic family, and so would experience persecution until his conversion to the Anglican Church. Despite his great education and poetic talents, he would live in poverty for several years, relying heavily on wealthy friends. Eventually he would become an Anglican priest and Dean of St Paul's. His literary works would reflect these trends, with love poetry and satires from his youth, and religious sermons during his later years." The over-use of "would" have been criticized in the past in FAC.
  • "Despite the obvious dangers, Donne’s mother ensured he was educated by the Jesuits,[1] from whom he acquired a profound understanding of his faith that equipped him for the ideological religious conflicts of his time." Why do you put the citation here in the middle of the sentence? The rest of it is unsourced?
  • The third paragraph of "Early life" is undercited. it needs at least one more citation.
  • "By the age of 25 he was well prepared for the glittering diplomatic career". "Glittering" could be regarded as POV I am afraid.
  • "Career and Later Life" has no citations.
  • "he remains one of the most vibrant, exciting and intellectually challenging of all English poets." Uncited and possibly POV.
  • "In a life largely devoted to state affairs, religion, and other matters considered more respectable in the culture of the day, he seems to have regarded writing as a tawdry habit he could never quite shake off, but his wide ranging output includes sonnets, love poetry, religious poems, Latin translations, epigrams, elegies, songs, satirical verses and sermons". Who says all these things? Any sources?
  • Get rid of "Trivia". Incorporate its material, if it is useful, in the main article.
  • "Critical Works" are no part of the references. They are "Further reading" or a separate "Critical Works" section.--Yannismarou 19:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awadewit

I think that this article has a lot of promise but some sentences are awkwardly worded (a copyedit would fix that) and it needs more scholarly citations. Overall, though, I think that the article needs a few sentences here and there to explain its ideas more fully, particularly to a reader unfamiliar with seventeenth century poetry.

  • Perhaps you could mention one or two of Donne's most famous works in the opening? The poems that one must have in a survey of a seventeenth-century poetry? What is the essence of Donne? (By the way, I disagree that you need a source for the list of genres that Donne wrote in. That is silly. That is not the kind of statement that requires a source. No historian or literary scholar would ask anyone for a source on such a statement.)
  • In the second paragraph: Was he poor because he was Catholic? Perhaps you could make that connection, if it exists, more explicit.
  • Why born sometime between January 23 and June 19? Why not born early in 1572? If those dates are significant, why not explain them?
  • Perhaps simply "Welsh father"?
  • As one of the other reviewers stated, the details on Donne's family are a little confusing. But I think that they are important. Clearly religion was an essential element of Donne's life. Perhaps that section could be reworded? Think of it like a story and less like a relation of a series of facts, perhaps.
  • Briefly explain Oath of Supremacy - at least mention that it is connected to his being Catholic.
  • Condense legal education sentences.
  • Explain "coterie poetry." Alas, it is not a commonly known term.
  • You mention the "17th Holy Sonnet" - explain it more or delete it. If it is important enough to mention, it is important enough to give a few sentences to.
  • Again, please explain why the "Death's Duel" sermon is infamous. Have some fun!
  • One cannot die "on Lent," only "during Lent." The church season lasts meany, many days.
  • Perhaps you should give even more detailed examples of the metaphysical conceit? It is a difficult concept to understand.
  • Could you list the works published in his lifetime with their original dates and then the standard Donne edition used by scholars in the Poetry and Prose sections? I found the dates jarring.
  • The footnotes look oddly referenced to me. I was confused by all of the letters. I'm also confused why you don't reference the biographies you've listed instead of the encyclopedia articles. In general, biographies are more complete and reliable than encyclopedias.
  • I would suggest removing "Sparknotes" from the external links as well. It is not a reliable source for literary criticism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Awadewit (talk • contribs) 19:12, February 5, 2007(UTC) (UTC)

User:BirgitteSB

  • I find the tone to be sometimes inappropriate and not upheld by the references. Tone should less dramtic. If the source reads Donne's first teachers were Jesuits. At the age of 11, Donne and his younger brother Henry were entered at Hart Hall, University of Oxford, where Donne studied for three years; don't talk of his mother ensuring hs education by Jesuits or his profound understanding.
    • Despite the obvious dangers, Donne’s mother ensured he was educated by the Jesuits, from whom he acquired a profound understanding of his faith that equipped him for the ideological religious conflicts of his time.
    • Donne was forced to accept a retired country life in Pyrford, Surrey
    • It is not known how Donne grew to abandon the faith he had been educated to defend
  • There is sometimes an inappropriate context as if you are stuck writing about what happened from within his lifetime instead of a general enyclopedia article.
    • These poems were never published although they circulated widely in manuscript form Never?
    • he would become vicar of St. Dunstan's-in-the-West would become?
  • The text is needs overall tightening; it is repeats events in different sections and is sometimes even contradictory. It would probably benefit from a complete overhaul in organization where his life and works are dealt with at the same time in chronologically based sections.
    • including the infamous Death’s Duel sermon delivered at the Palace of Whitehall before King Charles I in February 1631
    • Even as he lay dying on Lent in 1631, he rose from his sickbed and delivered what was later described as his own funeral sermon. In case you do not know: Death’s Duel sermon = what was later described as his own funeral sermon'
    • It is not known how Donne grew to abandon the faith he had been educated to defend, but he certainly was in communication with the King, James I of England, and in 1610 and 1611 he wrote two anti-Catholic polemics, Pseudo-Martyr and Ignatius his Conclave.[3] Although James was pleased with Donne's work, he refused to reinstate him at court and instead urged him to take holy orders.[2] After a long period of financial uncertainty and difficulty, spent seeking profitable employment, during which he was twice a member of Parliament (1601 and 1614), Donne finally acceded to the King's wishes and was ordained into the Church of England in 1615.[5]
    • Earlier he had valued a skeptical approach to religion, but this now gave way to a firm faith in the traditional teachings of the Bible. Having converted to the Anglican Church, Donne pursued a position as a preacher.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by BirgitteSB (talk • contribs) 01:22, February 11, 2007(UTC) (UTC)

Myco-heterotrophy

(Note that I am the main author and maintainer of this page.) So far, this has been rated as a Good Article. The article is in very good shape and has even been reviewed by Martin Bidartondo, one of the top authorities on this subject. I would like to have this article peer reviewed to see if it meets the criteria of an A-class article, and if not, what should be done to the article to bring it up to A-Class. (Note that the article is not long, but it is on a fairly specialized topic that does not require a long article.) Peter G Werner 20:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article. I don't claim any scientific knowledge of the subject but it generally reads well. Some comments and questions:
  1. Is the bold text in the second section consistent with wp:mos? Most articles do not have so much bold text and confine it to the first paragraph.
  2. The paragraph that starts "The interface between..." is confusing. To what is the 'It' in the second sentence referring? The interface? The first sentence is also confusing. In which association? A partial or full myco-heterotrophic one? Or all of them?
  3. Is the word 'ultimately' necessary?
  4. Can you use the link to the external website as a source for a new article (which you could then link to)? Or could this info go in another existing article?
  5. Do the fungi do anything to stop the parasitic plant?
  6. Will one variety of plant always be associated with one variety of fungus or will many different fungus types support the plant?
  7. Are there any characteristics that all myco-heterotrophic plants share across the various groups that they come from? Or never have?
  8. How common are these types of plant? JMiall 00:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take this point by point
  1. The bold text is consistent with WP:MOS. Many of these alternate terms represent existing redirect pages. Full and partial mycoheterotrophy represent a further introduction of terminology related to the core subject.
  2. Changed "It" to "Myco-heterotrophy".
  3. I'll think about that, but I think the word "ultimately" is necessary. Myco-heterotrophy strictly refers to the relationship between the parasitic plant and the fungus; when looking at the bigger picture of the mycorrhizal plant/mycorrhizal fungus/parasitic plant relationship, the parasitic plant is an epiparasite (an indirect parasite, or parasite on a symbiont).
  4. External links and further reading are sources of other articles on the same topic or more in-depth reading, even though I did not use these as sources for the article. I think this is nonetheless useful information to provide for the reader who may want to explore the topic further, even if I don't intend to use them to expand the article. I don't think the number of external links is excessive.
  5. There's no material on fungal defenses against myco-heterotrophic parasitism because I know of no research that's been done on this subject as of this date.
  6. Host/parasite specificity – will have to do more reading on that and add something to the article on this. I'm pretty sure snow plant (Sarcodes sanguinea) is associated with only one or a few species of Rhizopogon, while Allotropa virgata is parasitic upon matsutake. I'm not positive most myco-heterotrophic relationships are this specific – I'll have to some more reading.
  7. One characteristic that all share? Well, many (though not all) are non-photosynthetic, and I discuss that in the article.
  8. How common? Not sure how to answer that. As I mention, myco-heterotrophy is not uncommon in the plant kingdom. But in terms of how often you come across plants like this – it depends on the habitat, really. If I'm not mistaken, most northern coniferous forests contain at least a few monotropes and/or non-photosynthetic orchids. Anyway, that's not really a question most papers on the subject address, and I'm not really sure how to address that without starting to go into the realm of original research.
Peter G Werner 01:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking back at point 4, I was unclear on what you meant, but now I see – you're refering to the line to "common mycorrhizal network". Yes, in fact I think Wikipedia should have an article "Common mycorrhizal networks", but it doesn't, so I use the external link as a substitute for this shortcoming in Wikipedia. That's a whole other potentially big topic to take on. Do you think a better stop-gap solution might be to create a stub article for "common mycorrhizal network" with a link to the external article? Peter G Werner 01:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would personally prefer a stub that includes the link as further reading rather than just a straight link to an external website. Who knows, someone else might populate the stub for you once it is created. On the characteristics question what I was driving at was 'do myco-heterotrophic plants always share certain characteristics apart from ones obviously related to myco-heterotrophy' like maybe leaf or seed types (maybe this is a daft question, apologies if that is the case). JMiall 18:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some useful suggestions here, though many of the boilerplate suggestions really don't apply. I don't think the article needs to be longer than it is. I'm trying for an A-class short article, not a Feature Article. As for copyediting, I've been pretty thorough with that (including printing several drafts and doing red-letter editing by hand). If somebody else wants to provide another set of eyes, they're welcome to. On the other hand, the suggestion to expand the introductory section so that it summarizes the article as a whole is a sound suggestion, and I'll do that. Also, I'll actually provide references for where these plants have been called "mycorrhizal cheaters" and the relationship seen as a biological "cheating" relationship. Peter G Werner 10:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raoul Wallenberg

Please help improve this article for GA status. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Tanzler

Please review and let me know if any changes are needed. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Culture of California 1800s to mid 1900s

I have done major copyditing on the article. Many of the League of Copyeditors have worked on the article. I have added many pictures to the article so it nows looks goood. I added a large summary of the article. I plan to bump the article up to FA status? Any suggestions. Please share helpful comments to help the lead and other sections. Showmanship is the key 01:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, this is nowhere even close to Good Article status, much less Feature Article. For starters, just what is the article even about???? Its a mish-mash of California history, demographics, and a bunch of other California-related subjects, much of which doesn't even fall into the time period stated in the article. Most of the content is really material that belongs in different, already-existing articles. I seriously doubt this should be an article at all, much less a feature article. Sorry to be harsh, but that's my honest take on this article. Peter G Werner 08:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Henrietta Lacks

previous PR

Long Island Rail Road

I'm working on improving this to featured status, and would like to know what it currently needs (besides sources for the [citation needed] tags). I have yet to expand the rolling stock section (I'm hoping someone with a focus on that can help), and also want to write about steamboat, trolley, and bus operations, and add a section about service patterns, with a focus on non-commuter services like the Sag Harbor-Greenport "Scoot" and the Cannonball. But the general layout is complete. --NE2 04:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there are far too many red links. This has to be resolved, whether by creating stub articles for the links or by removing the links altogether. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 01:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why should the status of other articles affect the quality of this article? --NE2 16:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In my view the proliferation of redlinks suggests an overall case of overlinking. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 22:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To me it simply suggests undercoverage in historical articles. --NE2 23:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (written in response to the post at WP:VPA, but I noticed this PR and thought this would be more appropriate)The article is at 68 kb right now. I take the 20-minute guideline at Wikipedia:Article size, which suggests a size of 30-35kb, pretty seriously when evaluating an article. Even if you recalculate the size without images and the many references, a technique which reminds me of how I used to change margins in reports, the size would still be a concern. We sometimes forget that readers may not be entranced by our writing and want to spend an hour out of their day on whatever subject. I would second the suggestion to split off enough of the article to bring it back within the suggested range, though you of course should be the one to decide what the core topics are. If you do decide to split off History of the Long Island Rail Road, you can always put your efforts towards making that the featured article. Though, playing devil's advocate, I should note that the history section by itself is already 48 kilobytes, indicating either a need for more splitting or a good, merciless copyedit to remove redundancy and streamline wording. Measures like starting Central Railroad of Long Island and collapsing the text into one paragraph will help as well. - BanyanTree 16:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I tried to keep only the overall history in the article, and histories of the other companies and branch lines in their own articles. The various competitors only have the basics necessary to understand how they fit in to the overall picture. --NE2 17:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summary style could be a good compromise if the history section splits. Referencing needs to be more consistent throughout the article and the bullet list may be better if it's worked into paragraph form. Create stub articles for the many red links. Good work so far. DurovaCharge! 00:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without having read the above comments, here are my thoughts...

  • History section should be at the top.
  • The lead needs to be stronger, covering all the essentials, leading the reader into the history section with enough context.
  • History section is quite long, in proportion to the other sections; I suggest a subarticle on the History of the Long Island Rail Road and more of a summary here, per WP:SUMMARY.
  • Too many red links.
  • The first map (in the infobox) and the third map (in the history) need work... I think some of the key stations, such as the terminal stations should be marked and labelled on the map. Also, it's somewhat difficult for me to distinguish the "purple" and "red" colors on the map. Also, I would label the three states, the Long Island Sound, and the Atlantic Ocean to help orient readers that may not be familiar with the geography of the NYC region.
  • Also, there should be some historic images to accompany the history section. I found one Image:LIRR atlantic avenue station 1910.jpg in the Library of Congress catalog that satisfies copyright requirements here. The NYPL also has some material in digital format that may be of use, provided the copyright has expired. Surely there is more material out there...
  • References look good, except the "Freight service" section. --Aude (talk) 20:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. I don't understand why red links are a problem; these are places where articles will exist, and they should be linked. I'll look into the NYPL images, but I don't think a historic photo of a specific terminal is useful in the general article. Do you have any more comments on the history? If I split that, I will be taking that subarticle to FAC. --NE2 20:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It might just be me, but red links pop out (eye catching) at me and make it more difficult to read through the text. A red link here or there is okay, but I think it's something people may object to in WP:FAC. I think short stub articles are fine. --Aude (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I started looking at the NYPL images, and they have the same problem as the other images I've found: they include the "created date" but not the date published, if published at all. The latter is needed to figure out copyright status. --NE2 20:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A strategy that I sometimes use is to look through old books and publications available in libraries (public libraries like NYPL, universities, historical societies, ...). I have one book checked out now that was published in 1903. If you are in or near NYC and so inclined, the New York Historical Society's collection may include some useful items such as "Long Island illustrated" -- issued by the Passenger Department Long Island Railroad in 1903. Don't exactly know what it consists of, but might be useful. Historical society staff could probably advise you. Since it's the historical society, their materials are probably non-circulating, but they could provide a copy of a page or photograph. It might be too much effort, too inconvenient, or whatever... such efforts are definitely optional. --Aude (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to split off the history and not work on the main article, that's fine... but, the main article could probably use some details on things like fares (zone system? fare hikes?), safety and security, and expansion projects/proposals. (e.g. [5] [6] [7]) - I don't know how notable these details are and how worthy of mention, but some things I found. --Aude (talk) 21:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The passion that inspired you to expend the effort to write this page is lost among the details. If ridership is the LIRR's distinguishing characteristic, spend more time on that. No ridership comparisons with other systems are apparent. If history/age is the distinguishing characteristics, spend more time on that. The structure of an article on a Boston transit line, Red Line (MBTA), presents a useful structure for describing the history and infrastructure at once. Notable events might also bear mention; one that comes to mind is a terrible 1993 mass shooting. --Drtillberg 02:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic Committee of Portugal

This article was created by me and I'm its main editor so far. I believe it's quite developed considering I used one major source and one or two extra-references (probably a minus argument) but I would appreciate a second opinion about what should be improved in both content and writing style. Parutakupiu talk || contribs 23:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey there. I have done a little copyediting to the page. It looks very good! I just have a problem with the wording of this sentence; maybe try to fix it up so that it's more understandable:

    On occasion of the 75th anniversary of the Portuguese presence in the Olympic Movement – which also celebrated 90 years since the latter's creation in 1894 – the IOC president Juan Antonio Samaranch visits Portugal in October 26, 1984, to take part at the solemn ceremonies.

    → JARED (t)  18:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, Jared, thanks for the copyediting! It's always good sense to ask a native speaker to correct the grammar. As for that particular sentence, I understood your point and I've reworded it into this:

    On October 26, 1984, IOC president Juan Antonio Samaranch visits Portugal to take part at the solemn ceremonies of the 75th anniversary of the Portuguese presence in the Olympic Movement, which, coincidentally, celebrated 90 years since the its creation in 1894.

    Is it understandable now?
  • I briefly skimmed the article, but haven't done anything to it. One of my base problems with the article actually occurs in this sentence. A phrase like "solemn ceremonies" is a bit weaselly and unless attributable, should be avoided. The phrase "since the its creation" doesn't make sense. Did you mean "since its creation"? --Sue Anne 01:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing else in the article? I wanted to include a picture of the COP's president, but it's so hard to get a non-copyrighted photo. I don't know if I could upload a copyrighted one and claim fair-use. Parutakupiu talk || contribs 20:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked over it very quickly, so I didn't have time to look at everything. But the new rewording was good-- I just had to make a couple grammatical/tense changes. As far as the picture, I've never had a full grasp of the fair-use of a copyrighted work thing. I think that it would be acceptable, but don't ask me because I've always done it wrong! → JARED (t)  21:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the article was about the COP president or if the picture was taken at a COP meeting, you might be able to find a photo out there that you could claim as fair use. But, that would be really difficult. Did you check over on Commons to see if anything was there? --Sue Anne 01:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've already put a photo request on the man's article but I don't believe I'll get one in this century, lol. There's nothing on Commons, unfortunately. The thing is he's a "living person" so I can't claim fair-usage on a copyrighted photo (which I'm able to find) because it's possible for me to travel about 300 km, knock on his door and ask him to smile for the camera - but is it reasonable? Parutakupiu talk || contribs 01:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Parutakupiu, one other comment I'd like to add is that I think the use of navigational boxes as lists in the middle of the article is not a good style. I think normal bulleted lists are perfectly suitable for this purpose. Good work putting this article togather! Andrwsc 15:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, it's only 11 people long, so that's a manageable list in the standard format. I just think that navigation boxes ought to be reserved completely for that specific purpose. Andrwsc 23:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Despite a pause on the reviews, I've been developing the article, so there are new things that may be subject to an appreciation. Parutakupiu talk || contribs 00:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi. I was wondering if you could incorporate some of the main info from Portugal at the Olympics into the article, as the OCP would presumably be in some way responsible for the athletic performance of the delegation. Also, I think you should find some info about funding - how does the OPC get the money it needs to perform its activities, eg, government, private sponsorship, and also how it interacts with the various sports - eg the Australian Olympic Committee distributes money from the Government of Australia to the various sports. The other thing is that there are too many lists - If you are looking towards an FA in the future, you should either expand text into them - eg, in the President's section, put stuff about what the policies and changes that the given president did during his reign. For the list of sporting bodies, it proabbly should not be ther unless you have articles for each sporting federation. I think there needs to be more on how the decision making process and selection of the body occurs. Also has there ever been a bid by Portugal to host the Olympics? If so, this should be mentioned, or if any Portuguese IOC delegates were involved in bribery, etc. I can help you with the language. I always admire people who try to do their best in a second language. Regards, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some commments on the history section. I'll look through the rest later.

  • Why is José Vicente de Moura referred to as Commander in the lead section? Neither this article nor the article about the man himself explains this.
  • The letter cited in the first footnote is in French, not in Portuguese. I also think it would be better to find some kind of secondary source anyway.
  • "Sources defend this date [in 1906] as the real country's accession date to the Olympic Movement". "and this date [in 1909] is still regarded as the Olympism's date of institution in Portugal, making this nation the 13th to enter the Olympic Movement." This is a contradiction. Obviosly not all regard the latter date as "the Olympism's date of institution in Portugal".
  • The word "upgrade" in the second paragraph of the history section has to be clarified.
  • More wikilinks should be created, some examples: Jaime Mauperrin Santos, Portuguese Public Instruction minister, Olimpo, Portuguese Olympic Academy. Even if they are red these links should still exist so that editors will be motivated to write articles on these topics. --Carabinieri 13:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's been taken care of. The main issue with the rest of the article is that (most of) it needs to be turned into prose first.--Carabinieri 14:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You think so? As the main editor, it's easy to let many things pass undernoticed, even more when I'm writing in a non-native language - get's hard to maintain a prose-like text. That's why I'd like reviewers such as yourself to go forward and copyedit the article as needed. Parutakupiu talk || contribs 16:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neuro-linguistic programming

We have made adjustments to the page based on feedback from peer review and cleanup taskforce. We would like some suggestions on how to take this closer to GA or FA standard. Otherwise, how we could encourage experienced wikipedians to assist us in the process. --Comaze 22:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A medical (or quasi) article must have the highest-quality sources, which are usually indicated by the presence of a PMID, indicating peer-reviewed research. I don't see any. If this article came to FAC, I'd be checking every source for credibility, self-publication, etcetera, and objecting on grounds of lack of peer-reviewed, journal-published sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've started a list of articles related to NLP that have been indexed in pubmed: Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/Peer reviewed sources. I've also added AAT for dissertation and DOI for those indexed by psychinfo, etc. --Comaze 22:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are still quite a few improvement tags requesting clean up, expansion, checking imbalance. These should be actioned. The Criticism part is pretty mild. (my POV would be this NLP is a pseudoscience) and could be strengthened somewhat. The article size is about right, anybigger and you would think about splitting into more topics. GB 09:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of the peer-reviewed articles indexed in psychinfo, only a very small percentage hold the view that NLP is a pseudoscience. On the contrary most authors argue strongly for further research. Would you characterise your POV as positivist? Are you referring to a specific applications of NLP, for example, to the mental health profession? --Comaze 11:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SandyGeorgia for the timely 'hint'! So far our biggest job has been checking that the sources were remotely accurate or even existed at all. Now we need to attend to weight.Fainites 20:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Arguing that NLP is not "scientific" nor is accepted by the "establishment" are not necessarily arguments that objectively invalidate the study and practice of NLP. The simple fact is that some, indeed I argue too much, of what is referred to as "scientific study" is either biased, flawed or for whatever reason fails in it's pursuit of absolute fact and unbiased truth. There's a lot at stake, people, powerful people, have created a reputation and an industry that they want to protect at all costs, even if it is less effective than an alternative like NLP, indeed especially in this case. I will not delve into the supporting evidence for NLP here, merely to note that there are vested interests at play that seek to discredit any modality that threatens their income and status. Absence of so called 'evidence' is not and never will be evidence of absence. NLP continues to grow not because it is a fad but because it works and often does so more quickly, effectively and cheaply than conventional psychotherapy. The proof as they say is in the pudding. There are always going to be nay sayers and skeptics, most of whom have their own hidden agendas. For the record I profess no allegiance to NLP, only to truth, and that my friends is ever changing as our understanding and perception of reality expands and becomes more refined. "Is the world flat or round? Go have a look" --STS

Isiah Leggett

I'm pretty new at this, so I started with a low-priority article. Need general assessment, including whether it follows general WP and project guidelines for style. Are there enough citations? What parts need to be expanded? Should there be more about family and personal life or should the emphasis remain on his political career? Mocko13 02:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Galanskov

A good article so far. The style looks good to me. The article needs some more citations and interwiki links. I think the emphasis of this article should remain on his political career. Information on his personal life should be kept to the basics, such as whether or not he's married or has kids. The infobox could do with some more information. It might help if specific dates are given for some of the events described in the early life section. I'll help out. (Note: I'm a relative newbie around here too, so my recommendations may not be as good as those given by a veteran editor.) Galanskov 19:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trebor

It's looking good so far, and I've upgraded the rating to B-class. I'll add my thoughts:

  • You should add the birth date in brackets after the name. See the style guidelines for biographies for more information on standard formatting.
  • During the 1970's - there is no need for an apostrophe in "1970's".
  • He would return - keeping it simple, just leave it as "he returned" (at the moment, there's a mismatch of tense with the rest of the sentence).
  • Be consistent in your wikilinking of dates (see here for the guideline). There are two basic rules to follow: if you have a month and a day, wikilink them together to allow user date preferences to set in (you can set in your preferences if you prefer August 10, or 10 August, for instance); and don't link years on their own unless it adds context. If there's a day, month and year, wikilink them all for date preferences. Hope you could follow that.
  • The whole article is a low on references. Ideally, every fact you include can be cited to a source, but at least aim for one cite per paragraph.
  • In the references, enter the accessdate as yyyy-mm-dd so it will be wikilinked and not come up as a redlink.
  • The image may not fall under fair use - as it is a living person, it is replaceable. If you can't get hold of a freely licensed image, don't worry, but I'm warning you that the image may be deleted. If you can get hold of or create a freely licensed image then that's great and add it to the article.

Those are my suggestions on how to improve it; keep up the good work. Trebor 21:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mocko13

Thanks for edit suggestions, made edits based on them. Going to keep the photo until it gets pulled. The article on Doug Duncan has one form the same source, which is why I went there. Mocko13 00:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou

Previous reviewers covered the major problems. Some minor remarks:

  • Per WP:MoS do not wikilink single years (e.g. 2006); only full dates (June 2, 2006).
  • Don't you have the full date of his birth?
  • "First Term as County Executive" looks a bit stubby to me. Can't you expand it a bit, analyzing the controversial issues you mention?--Yannismarou 08:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maxillary central incisor

In the string of work of dental articles, this article has the most content about a single tooth than any other. I want to know what could be done to improve the language of the article (considering the specificity of the content) and what else may need to be added. I appreciate any feedback. - Dozenist talk 02:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For a read through this article seems in pretty decent shape, although it may be a little more difficult for somebody (like me) who is unfamiliar with the terminology.
  • Right off the bat I think it would help if a simple definition was inserted as the first sentence of the article. For example, "Maximum central incisor is a tooth mounted in the upper jaw, or maxilla, of a human. It is usually the most..." or some such statement.
  • The introduction is perhaps a tad too brief. Most reviewers prefer that it provide an overview of the article, summarizing the key topics. So possibly another paragraph could be added?
  • The "Notation" section is in need of some citations.
  • There are a number of terms that could do with a wikilink: mesiodistally, cervicoincisally, cingulum, labial, fossa, cementum, cervical, mesial, distal, gingival, apical, malocclusion. The existing cingulum page may need an addition.
  • I believe: "maxillary central incisors [are] one of only two types"
  • Is "greater deeper than normal lingual fossa" correct? It reads peculiarly. Perhaps "greater deeper-than-normal lingual fossa", but that's still not quite right.
I hope this was slightly helpful. Unfortunately I'm not sure what else may need to be added as I'm unfamiliar with the subject matter. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 17:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I greatly appreciate all the feedback. Hopefully, I will be able to address all the issues soon. Thanks again! - Dozenist talk 15:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any connection with animal teeth in general? I could tell it was human teeth by the infob ox - but in the introduction would be good.
  • There is a paucity of wikilinks in the later paragraphs - good to see some more here. GB 08:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I was able to address all the points listed here. Thanks again for all the input! - Dozenist talk 19:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sukhoi Su-30

One of the more important warplanes of our time, and perhaps the most important of the "Eastern bloc"; Indian Su-30MKIs reputedly kicked USAF F-15s all over the sky (tho the fairness of the exercise is disputed). Definitly something that should be quickly moved up to GA status methinx... - Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 00:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Lokshin

There's still a lot of work to be done here, obviously. In no particular order:

  • The lack of references and citations is a major problem.
  • Bulleted lists are overused, and should be converted into prose.
  • The issue with the subsidiary variant articles needs to be resolved. I wouldn't necessarily advocate merging them in, but they'll need a longer summary section here, at the least.
  • Is the "Su-30MK multi-role twin-seater" section supposed to be a sub-section of "Development"?
  • There doesn't seem to be any coverage of it's operational use (or, indeed, anything after the development phase).

Once the big problems get fixed, you can turn to copyediting and fiddling with the structure and coverage; but, at the moment, it's a bit premature to consider those. Kirill Lokshin 01:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Askari Mark

A very good start, but I agree with Kirill Lokshin that there remains further development to be done. Not to duplicate his comments, I would add the following observations:

Automated

PocklingtonDan

  • "The aircraft is comparable with USA's F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and F-15E Strike Eagle." I'm not happy with this sentence. Why is this necessary? Why contrast to a US fighter as opposed to a British, French, Israeli, Chinese or whatever one? You assume US readership. I would remove this sentence. You have already described its role, a US-specific comparison is unnccessary
  • As above, sorely lacking cites at present
  • As above, more info needed on training, operational use, etc
  • The "specifications" section should go in some kind of sidebar rather than being a section of the main article, in my opinion
  • "Differential ±15-degree deflection of the engines' axisymmetric nozzles (with turn axes positioned at 32-deg angle to each other) enables pitch/yaw thrust vectoring control" This is all Greek to me. If using concepts like this, you should link to wiki articles on them, introduce a diagram or explain them in-line, in my opinion

I think ideally you need to find smeone with understanding of and access to Russian sources, where you will hopefully find a wealth of information that you can use to expand the article - PocklingtonDan 09:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Bakshi

A lot of work has been put into this article overtime. I'd like to know how well the various editors who worked on this article have done, and what more could be done to bring this entry to featured article quality. (Ibaranoff24 23:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Yannismarou

Very nice in generel. Some remarks for further improvement:

  • In the lead: "animated feature films that were aimed at adults ", "He pioneered animation with adult themes". IMO this looks like a repetition; maybe you could combine the two similar assessments.
  • "and it was unquestionably aimed primarily at adult audiences—something that had previously been unheard of. Creator Robert Crumb, however, hated the film, and eventually wound up killing off the title character in retaliation." Proper referencing needed here.
  • "animation scholars accused him of not producing "real" animation, but simply training artists to trace over live action." Citation needed again; otherwise it is weasel.
  • "Bakshi turned away from race and cultural issues and began producing fantasy films." The connection of this paragraph with the previous one looks to me a bit sheamless.
  • "Another unmade Bakshi project was to be called Bobby's Girl, to be made from a screenplay he co-wrote with a young and ambitious Canadian named John Kricfalusi." "Unmade" and then "to be made". Have in mind that if you go for FAC the prose must be brilliant.
  • "The series was widely hailed by TV critics, and it is still prized by collectors of TV series today." Again citation needed. Try to ahve at least one citation for each paragraph.
  • "to Bakshi's earlier films Coonskin[17][18][19]". Try to avoid more than 2 citations in a row. You can combine them in various ways in one citation. See for instance Tourette syndrome or W. S. Gilbert.
  • Last paragraph of "Controversy and criticism" also needs citing.
  • "He is widely believed to be the inspiration for the character of Comic Book Guy on The Simpsons and Ralph the Guard on Tiny Toons Adventures and Animaniacs." Who believes that?
  • I added a [citation needed] in "Influence".--Yannismarou 09:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Planning on elevating to featured article status, so I need some advice on what to add, delete or change. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is better than the first Zelda's article. I really felt like I had an idea as to what the game actually was. But a screenshot of the overworld, some more links and references, and some historical context would be nice. Did it have any effect on the console wars? Did Miyamoto take any flack for it? How involved was he? Plus the Talk: page is still messy. PS: the introduction has some strange-sounding locutions. You might want to scrutinize that. --Maru (talk) 02:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a few years since the last peer review, and i feel that we may be well on our way to FA, and was hoping for some more tipsDurinsBane87 19:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trebor

Few comments:

  • It's short on references, there are whole paragraphs and sections without cites.
  • Is there no more information on the development and reception. At the moment, it seems very focused on the gameplay and is predominantly in-universe.
  • There are a few stubby sections and paragraphs. Try to link it together to encourage a better flow.
  • For featured-quality, the images could do with more detailed fair use rationales.

It's good, but still needs some work. Trebor 23:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jay32183

  • The gameplay section should probably be consolidated. It doesn't need to be sectioned off. It could probably also benefit with citations from the game manual or a player's guide.
  • The development section needs a good deal of expansion. Explain the process of developing this particular game, like how the story was written. Listing the developers isn't enough.
  • Check old gaming magazines for reviews, the reception section is empty.
  • Try and weed out details that are trivial. This is a general encyclopedia artical, not a fan's guide.
  • As suggested above, more sources and citations, and detail those fair use rationales for the specific use. Jay32183 20:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • An additional note: complete dates should always link to the year in general for user preference purposes. Only link to year in video games when the year stands on its own. Jay32183 23:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

I've been helping with some cleanup on this article, and I think it should eventually pass the GA nom. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Danski14 18:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trebor

  • Tidy up the references, use the appropriate cite template to get them automatically formatted with source, title, reference date and so on.
  • There are a number of external links embedded in the article, which is a bit messy. Link to the Wikipedia page, or put them in External Links (or don't link at all if they're not very relevant).  Done(except campus links to maps, and still could use a little tweaking)
  • As ridiculous as this arrangement sound - very POV.  Done
  • The first couple of sections are good, but it becomes listy and unreferenced later on (particularly Campus) Done(references added}
  • The title of the last section should probably be Notable alumni  Done

Pretty good, but needs a bit of a tidy-up throughout. I haven't looked at the prose in any great detail either. Trebor 19:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I worked on the citations. I agree that campus is a little listy, but am unsure of what to do, if anything. Danski14 22:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the prose elaborates on the periods of expansion, the list at the start may be unnecessary. But I was mainly referring to the lack of citations for the whole of the Campus section. Trebor 22:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I think I will add one or two more. Danski14 22:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Gurion International Airport

Wanting feedback as to whether this article in general is a 'good article' which could be put forward as an 'A' grade standard airport article. Flymeoutofhere 12:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 500 metres, use 500 metres, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 500&nbsp;metres.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.[?] Specifically, an example is 15 km.
  • When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (for example, change kms to km and lbs to lb).
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.[?]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • it has been
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
    • “In the year [of] 2000”
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.[?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 18:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just glancing at it, it doesn't appear to have any citations or sources, which will be an immediate barrier to A-class. Trebor 20:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Van de Kamp

Ok, I've been working on this for a while, and now I want to take it to FAC some time soon. I've tried to keep the biography as short as possible, though it proved trying. The characterization and reception sections are the result of my trawling through every single Google search result on Andrew, all 37 pages of it. I would welcome any tips to get it to FA. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I'm "qualified" to review this, but most of this article deals with Andrew's character rather than Andrew himself. What kind of person is he like? What are his other accomplishments beyond Desperate Housewives ? How about his early life? Things like that. - Pandacomics 08:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, Andrew isn't a real person. He doesn't exist outside of desperate housewives... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't suggest anything as it seems ready for FA already. Of course any more info is always welcome. LuciferMorgan 00:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main picture has been tagged for deletion in a week due to copyright crap. Apart from that, seems like an excellent article, no suggestions here. God he's so hot. :-) Mentality 14:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same-sex marriage in Spain

This article is already a GA, and I believe it could be a FA one day. Suggestion to improve it to this end are greatly appreciated. Raystorm 11:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dev920

Good article (well, obviously), here's some stuff I found:

  • No dictionary knows what "tramitation" means, and I don't know what you meant here.
  • Your use of references is good, but Residency issues and Marriage numbers could do with a few more. Footnotes should follow directly after a punctuation mark, without a space. You may wish to correct that.
  • "Canada's federal same-sex marriage legislation passed its final reading in the House of Commons in late June 2005. It received Royal Assent and became law in late July 2005." Is this sentence necessary? Can it be cut down?
  • In the history section, it says the bill was rejected because the "opposition People's party" held a plurality of seats. Was this because they were simply being contrary, or are they opposed to gay marriage anyway?
  • "Prominent People's Party members later rejected these afirmations by Polaino (who was later found to believe in exorcisms)." The exorcisms clause I think is slight POV.
  • "Children born within a lesbian marriage (from whatever means)" What does this bracketed clause mean, or add to the sentence?
  • "Catholics in particular were adamantly opposed to it." Well, that's not true, if 76% of Spaniards are Catholic, but 66% supported gay marriage. Can you clarify this sentence?
  • All dates (January 21, 2007) need to be wikilinked, per WP:DATE. It is somewhat sporadic throughout the article.
  • You need to reference the entire last paragraph of Reactions, or it seems like OR.

That's all I can think of at the moment. I'll add to it if I find anything. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for taking the time to review the article!
  • Sorry. Seems my Legal English isn't as fantastic as I thought. How do you call the process a law must undergo to finally become a law?
ratification (I am starting my own peer review now). Jeffpw 13:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the marriage numbers, we tried to provide the estimations from a conservative source (La Razon), the LGTB Spanish organization and a Government officer. What other references should be added? I'll try to see what I can find for the Residency section.
  • The sentence about Canada is because there was some confusion about which country had become the third to allow gay marriage. In fact, some news sources list Spain as being the 4th country to allow it, instead of the third. I'll try to cut it down, but I think it's important to keep.
  • Ahhh, that's the mistery about the PP! In the previous 8 years, while they governed, they took no steps to provide equal rights to gays. In fact, they shot down several propositions from the opposition. They argue that if they had won the elections they would have regulated by law gay unions, but we will never know will we? They have gone to demonstrations against gay marriage, saying their problem is the use of the word 'marriage', not gay people per se. So you could say they opposed gay marriage at the Senate because they were both being contrary (they've seldom agreed with the Government in anything) and because they did not support gay marriage.
  • *Grin* Okay, the exorcism sentence might be slightly POV. I think I added it to provide a counter balance to Polaino's previous statements. I figured it'd be 'informative' to let people know that the guy who said such things about gays had also written articles based on religious beliefs as opposed to hard science (that would be relevant explaining his gay statements, don't you think?). An article is provided as a ref too, so it isn't just hearsay. But if it is a big problem it can be removed or reworded.
  • The lesbian marriage sentence. Well, I also don't like it too much. The 'from whatever means' refers to the several possibilities (in vitro, male friend) a lesbian could get pregnant. It makes no difference the way a lesbian gets pregnant. It's not a strong sentence, I'll see if I can reword it.
  • Well, the problem is the definition of Catholic. Most Spaniards are Catholic because they were baptised at birth, and that fact is recorded and cannot be changed even if the person later rejects the Catholic creed. As baptism is a tradition in Spain, most Spaniards are Catholic. I could say 'Catholic authorities' to prevent confusion.
  • I thought the dates were okay? Well, I'll change them then.
  • You mean the paragraph about gay adoption being legal in several Spanish cities? Alright. I'll see if I can make some sort of wiki link to the Gay Rights in Spain article.
Thanks again Dev920! :) I'll try to make the changes asap. Cheers! Raystorm 12:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article does have a good shot at FA, but you must get a good copyeditor to go through it first. There are some prose issues that I cannot help you with. I've fixed some rogue footnotes, so do be careful about this with your next article. Otherwise, I cannot think of anything else to say about this article. Well done! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Already requested a copyeditor to go through it. :) Thanks! Raystorm 22:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Does this mean it might now rate A-class at the Wikiproject? ;P Raystorm 23:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffpw's review

  • lead: first sentence: it is IN not ACROSS. Why is Spain bolded?
Double use of officially is jarring
rather high:--seems weaselly to me. Can you provide actual figures?
Ditto for the sentence about Catholics; you should also modify this per Dev's comment.
decided to challenge. Did they challenge or not? Simply saying challenged is less ambiguous.
delete and only if from sentence about foreigners marrying (it's redundant)
  • History: some local benefits--this is not precise; what do you mean???
breakup is a colloquialism; if the relationship ended might be a better term.
about marriage is rather clunky. Consider changing to in matters relating to marriage.
  • Check the entire article for use of passive voice. I thought I noticed it a few times in the article.
the day of his inauguration. Changing to AT his inauguration will read better.
  • only wikify dates if year is also included, per WP:MOS
Remove Canada sentence, per Dev--it's just unnecessary.
  • Complete tramitation of Law 13/2005-- Tramitation is actually ratification. Also, what does 13/2005 mean??? is that a date?
critic about--you mean critcal of

It argued that said extension was not demanded by the Spanish Constitution, and that the same result (end of discrimination) could be achieved through other legal means. Clarify this, please. Do you mean the expansion of rights to marry?

previsions:Do you mean provisions? I would suggest deleting that clause, as it does not add to sentence.
no effect in a childs' development--ON a child's.
affirmations. I think you mean assertions.
(with the girls): change to regarding girls; same with the part about boys.
exorcisms per Dev (but I like it!).
uplifted the veto--clarify please. I have no idea what you mean.
The uplifting of the veto supposed its definite approval as law. Ditto.
sanctioned could better be written as endorsed.
True enough, the king of Spain would later proceed to give his Royal Assent to the law. Remove true enough. It's just plain awkward.
  • Residency issues: consulate marriages: Add consuls in S Africa--same-sem marriage is now legal there.
Belgium and Netherlands only marries residents--cite please. Also, wikilink to relevant articles about sema-sex marriage in the countries, not the countries themselves.
  • marriage numbers--more cites needed for first paragraph
divorces consummated: granted might be a more regular word choice.
Two weeks after this rally, and coinciding with the Gay Pride Day, 2.0 million people marched in favour of the new law for gays and lesbians, organizers claimed (official sources accounted 97,000). This is an odd sentence construction. Insert the final clause at the beginning of sentence.
matrimonio Is there some reason you wish to use this word, and then define it? Youcan also just say matrimony.
bringing up is an idiomatic phrase--raising is a better word choice.
  • There is a tense problem in reactions--you slip back and forth between past and present tense. Please adjust this accordingly.

All in all, this is an excellent article. I suggest you submit it to the League of copyeditors for a thorough edit, since English is your second language. After they have vetted it, please submit it for Good Article status. I would happily support its becoming a GA.


Err, it's already a GA. :) Law 13/2005 is the official name of the law. Spain is bolded because the articles' name is same-sex marriage in Spain (besides, followed Same-sex marriage in Canada lead for this per request of GA reviewer, check talk page). The 'rather high' comment is properly referenced at the reactions section, do I reference it again at the lead? I was just summarizing some sections' contents at the lead.
It argued that said extension was not demanded by the Spanish Constitution, and that the same result (end of discrimination) could be achieved through other legal means. Clarify this, please. Do you mean the expansion of rights to marry?
Well, it means that marriage wasn't necessary per se. Discrimination could be avoided by some kind of civil union regulation instead. I'll try to find a less confusing way to express this.
uplifted the veto--clarify please. I have no idea what you mean.
It means they took away the veto, it stopped having effect. I use British English, and I'm starting to realise some words are different from American English. (Just FYI, English is not my second language -I simply wasn't the only editor writing the article!). :)
AHA! In Americanspeak, that's "Override". Thanks for clarifying it for me. I hadn't heard the British term.
The marriage numbers. An online reference isn't provided, true, but the newspaper and agency that did these estimations are mentioned both by name and date. I thought that was valid?
I'll proceed with all the other changes asap (It's gonna be fun trying to find out if there's a Spanish Consulate in South Africa...). Thank you very much for taking the time to review the article! Cheers Raystorm, 21 January 2006, 17:25 UTC
Oops! I just went to the peer review from the LGBT page, so didn't look at the talk page tag, and only skimmed the rest of the stuff on this page. My apologies for not seeing that. Also, in rereading my review, I realize I may have come across as a pedantic dickhead, which was cewrtainly not my intention. I am doing 8 things at once, and was typing quickly (and a bit tersely, in retrospect). After you implement the suggested changes, consider submitting it for Featured status. At the very worst, you'll get more valuable feedback; and I think it has a very good shot at FA. Cheers, Jeffpw 18:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all mate, I honestly appreciate the feedback. Seeing lots of emoticons might make for a pleasant review, true, but it certainly isn't required. :) I'd rather have some good FB thrown back at me instead. Plus I understand all about time constraints, believe me. I'm glad you were able to drop your two cents in making this (hopefully) a FA one day. Cheers! Raystorm 18:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated peer review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.[?]
  • There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: organize (A) (British: organise), recognize (A) (British: recognise), recognise (B) (American: recognize), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization).
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • Avoid using contractions like (outside of quotations): weren't, don't, didn't, isn't.
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 18:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Blink* Except for the image on the top right corner thing, I think everything else is covered. Raystorm 18:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a legislation infobox and juggled the images in the article a bit. How does it look now? Should I take it off or leave it? Raystorm 21:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Obviously I'm not asking the bot, but other humans. ;) Raystorm 21:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think you can add one more image to the top, or move one of the lower images? It looks a little stark, with the new infobox added. Jeffpw 21:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It does, doesn't it? Let's see what I can do about it... Raystorm 21:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Better now? :) Raystorm 21:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Much! I know it seems strange, that the Spain box should be lower than the LGBT box, but the LGBT one is just so much more colorful. Visual appeal is a factor...to me, anyway. Call it the Queer Eye. :-) Jeffpw 22:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I wasn't liking too much the outcome either after I added the Spain infobox, but figured it was a necessary addition. It does look better now. We are all visual animals anyway. :) Raystorm 22:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freak Out!

I did a lot of work on this article to bring it from its original state to its current level of quality. How did I do? (Ibaranoff24 11:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)) (To clarify, I am trying to get this article to FA status. - Ibaranoff24 02:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Trebor

I like it, good work. My main problem is the second paragraph of the lead because, while written in very attractive prose, it doesn't seem particularly encyclopaedic. It's very POV - obviously written by a Zappa fan - and without citations, it's also original research. Added to that, the lead is meant to be a summary of the article, yet most of the points raised aren't mentioned later on. Also, is there any more information on the inspiration for some of the songs on the album? Aside from that, I like it. Trebor 23:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick response! Looking at it in more detail (it'd also be useful to know what you're aiming for with this - featured?):
  • Freak Out! was one of the earliest double albums, and also one of the earliest concept albums - too similar to the sentence in the lead without enough expansion. Perhaps just explain how it was a concept album and don't repeat that's it's a "double".
  • The Beatles' Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band - wikilink
  • Is there any more information that could be added on people's opinions today (like the top 500 album of all time ranking)? Trebor 23:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crepitus (mythology)

I have added a fair amount of information to this page, trying to clear up a mystery. I had accepted as gospel the comments made in annotations to my translation of The Temptation of Saint Anthony by Gustave Flaubert that the alleged god Crepitus, the Roman god of flatulence, was a modern invention. Then I encountered the God once again, on re-reading The Anatomy of Melancholy by Robert Burton; and by this spiritual epiphany was born again. It seems that the notion of an ancient Roman god of flatulence was not entirely a recent invention, and I have attempted to sketch the origins and progress of belief in this deity in the article, in hopes of starting a lucrative cult. At any rate, I think this clears up a minor historical mystery, and thought I'd ask for other opinions as to whether any questions are left about the origins of this humble faith. - Smerdis of Tlön 08:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


In terms of 'legend' and the ideas of an actual worshiped diety or not. I would suggest a modern era correlation. Flatulence is funny & our own dear Ben Franklin wrote on the subject. Not to mention the modern jokes that are made about it. At least a line or two that can link up to an additional article. Dharp66 20:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)Dharp66[reply]

I'm confused about the research here. Are you working entirely from primary sources connecting the alleged Egyptian god with the alleged Roman god? I fear that may be WP:OR. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

King George V School

I would like an article assesment and importance rating on this article and ways of improvement.

After you made the assesment and importance rating could you please put it on the talk page in the template 

{{WPSchools
 |class=
 |importance=
 }}


Put the assement rating on the class bit and the importance rating on the imortance bit. It will on the top of the page.

It will look like this:

Thanks a lot KGV 05:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trebor

I made the assessment at a B-class; I don't feel able to judge the importance. The main reason it won't get any higher at present is a lack of references. The whole article needs citing. It's also weak on history, and a bit too focused on more recent events. Trebor 23:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William C. Rogers III

Improvements were made to the article in December 2006, I would like an article assessment and any notes to improve the article. Unfortunately I haven't found an image, but I think the basics of a biography are present. There is also a minor content issue involving the frequency of pipe bombings in San Diego in 1996, maybe someone could add their opinion on that issue as well. Thanks in advance for any comments. --Dual Freq 21:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've fixed the citations as best I can, added some more biographical material and a couple of fairuse images, if there are anymore questions, I'd be happy to address them. Thanks. --Dual Freq 03:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Lokshin

Let's see:

  • The main issue with the article, at this point, is that it's unacceptably terse. The primary reason why Rogers is known is the IR655 incident; the article only devotes two sentences to it. The main Iran Air Flight 655 article is meant to have more detail on the incident as a whole, of course; but it has, at the moment, more material on Rogers' role in it specifically, which isn't a good thing.
  • The prose is quite choppy, with numerous one-sentence paragraphs. The text should really be coalesced into meatier blocks.
  • The section headings should be in sentence case.

Other than that, this looks to have the basics down. As far as an image goes, is there an official one available from the Navy? Kirill Lokshin 22:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to review the article. I looked pretty hard through the DOD images site for an image, but I was unable to locate one. I suppose I could find his book and scan the dust cover photo, but I was trying to avoid fair use and hoping another editor might be able to locate one. The Iran Air section was removed from the article by another editor and pointed to the main article. I could try to re-add it, but I'm afraid it will revert back to it's previous condition describing the incident with quotes like:it "marked the horrifying climax to Captain Rogers' aggressiveness, first seen four weeks ago" I'll see if I can add a brief summary of the incident. --Dual Freq 23:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually a pretty interesting quote, but obviously needs to be given with more context. Mainly, the article should devote some more space to describing the controversy, particularly insofar as it touches on Rogers' own role in the incident. The question of whether Rogers' actions were appropriate is one that's been one of the focal points of the incident and its historiography; at the moment, the article doesn't really even indicate that his actions were controversial. Kirill Lokshin 00:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added an overview of the downing incident, but I'm finding it difficult to summarize it in just a few paragraphs. Maybe you could skim through it once and let me know if it's overly POV one way or another. Also, I'm wondering about the need for the 1996 note that pipe bombs are a common occurrence as the bombing occurred in 1989. --Dual Freq 02:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The overview looks pretty good, at least as far as I can tell. The length and depth is something to play with; the article is quite short, so there's no problem with adding more material, but we don't want to go off on too many tangents that aren't related to Rogers himself.
As far as the pipe bombs are concerned: unless there's some reason to believe that the statement was related in some way to the Rogers case, I wouldn't include it, as it seems too tenuous a connection otherwise. Kirill Lokshin 02:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another editor is rather insistent about keeping the 1996 pipe bomb statement, if I remove it again they will likely just re-add it. I think it's being used to refute Roger's book and the widespread assumptions from 1989 that the bombing was terrorism related as payback for the Iran Air downing. The source doesn't draw that conclusion and only mentions it as a notable bombing in San Diego's history so I wanted to remove it, but have been unable to. --Dual Freq 05:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou

  • "Early life and career prior to 1988" offers insufficient information for the first 50 years of his life. I think the section could be expanded and maybe split in two sections: 1) "Early life" and 2) "Career prior to 1988".
  • Some sentences in the same section look to me problematic: "He was commissioned December 1965, his first tour of duty was the aircraft carrier, USS Independence (CV-62)." "Captain Rogers married Sharon Rogers, also from Fort Worth, Texas, they had one son Will C. Rogers IV who was born around 1969." Maybe the punctuation is here the problem, but, in general, I think the prose of this section is a bit choppy.
  • "At the time, Vincennes was one of only five cruisers commissioned that carried the new Aegis weapons system and command of those cruisers was considered to be very prestigious." IMO you should devote a few more words to what is exactly "the new Aegis weapons system".
  • "Received with skepticism by some". "Some" who?! Too vague! CIte and explain, if there is available information.
  • "Storm Center: A Personal Account of Tragedy & Terrorism. Sharon Rogers, Will Rogers, Gene Gregston. Naval Institute Press, June 1992. ISBN 1-55750-727-9." When you cite a book, you should mention pages.
  • The formating of your online citations in not uniform. You can use Template:cite web and Template:cite news, sincr full citations are needed.--Yannismarou 15:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to review the article. Unfortunately, I don't have any further information at this time about Rogers first 50 years. Since he is only notable for a single incident there isn't much out there. I'm trying to get a hold of his book to see if it include more biographical details, but it's not available at my local library. I've remove the skeptics part since that is addressed in the following paragraph and the Iran Air 655 article. As for the Aegis bit, perhaps I assumed people would find the Aegis info from the linked pages, I've tried to summarize it. I suppose it deserves even more treatment since some of the blame for the Iran Air downing has been directed towards the system. I'll rework the citations as soon as I can. Thanks again. --Dual Freq 17:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated

Armenian Revolutionary Federation

I would like some feedback on how to make this article featured. It was just recently accepted as a Good article. I believe after alot of research and hard work, most of the work is done, but I'd like to be 100% certain. In this review, I just want to make sure that everything's done to meet FA requirements. I'd like it to be checked for its NPOV, grammar, punctuation etc. Also if familiar with the topic, please state anything you find missing. Thank you! - Fedayee 23:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trebor

Okay, I'm looking at this mostly from a prose point of view:

  • Done Sentence beginning The party operates in Armenia, and in countries... is long and snakelike, making it hard to follow. The background information about Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh could probably be cut, it's not especially relevant and detracts from the thrust of the sentence.
  • Done politically oriented - hyphenate.
  • Done various small groups - various is redundant.
  • Done You could perhaps wikilink the names of the founders in the first section as well. I know it's a repeat from the lead, but the lead was very link-heavy so they could be missed.
  • Done At that meeting the - comma after "meeting".
  • Done the various chapters - various is redundant.
  • Done June 12 1903 - wikilink dates with month and a day to allow date preferences to work.
  • Done the Hunchak and ARF parties supplied - comma after "parties".
  • Done and to manage to grab - I think "to manage" is redundant.
  • Done (changed the phrase and added 2 references) It was an important victory for the ARF, both militarily and morally - needs a citation.
  • There's very inconsistent date formatting. Have a look at the manual of style for their guidelines on usage.
  • Done Sometimes he was viewed as being ignorant and sometimes he was dubbed a great hero - needs reference.
  • I'm not quite sure what the templates are doing for Nagorno-Karabakh and Lebanon; they're designed for their own articles and don't really make sense midway through a different page.

My general impression is that all the information is there, but it needs a pretty thorough copyedit, and a bit of standardisation. Good work so far. Trebor 00:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick work. To clarify further, the problem I had with the templates is that they aren't applicable for midway through an article. They say "This article is part of the series: Politics and government of Lebanon" which is clearly false; if templates are needed at all, these aren't the right ones. I got about halfway through the article last time, so continuing with comments from there (and yes, I could correct most of these myself, but it's easier to list them here than keep editing the article:
  • Done and by trying to imprison - "by" is redundant.
  • Done April 19 - wikilink for date preferences. If there is a month and a day, always wikilink.
  • Done The Dashnaktsutiun was also involved in other, albeit less successful resistance movements - "albeit" is unnecessary, you're not contradicting anything. Will be fine as "other less-successful resistance movements" (I think the hyphen is correct).
  • Done Later on, the ARF leader Aram Manougian - a specific date would be better than a vague "later on".
  • Done The Russian Empire collapsed in 1917. As a result, in the winter of 1918 - no need for wikilinked dates here (bet you're getting tired of hearing this). Generally, don't link individual years unless (and this happens rarely) they provide useful context; however, you should link them if they are associated with a month and day. Confusing, I know.
  • Done The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk had drastic consequences for the Armenians; the Turkish forces reoccupied Western Armenia. - this is unclear. If you want to say the drastic consequences were the Turkish forces reoccupying Western Armenia, then use a colon. At the moment, the relationship is unclear.
  • Done only 3 months - write "three" out in full, as it's smaller than ten.
  • Done It was eventually decided - eventually is another vague term for a time period; anything more specific would be better.
  • Done It was decided that they would do battle - not a very encyclopaedic turn-of-phrase, in my eyes. What does "do battle" mean? Be more specific.
  • Done 28 May, 1918 - just to clarify, this is a case where the year should be linked. The month and day should be linked together, and the year linked by itself, for date preferences.
  • Done The paragraph beginning With the collapse of the Transcaucasian Federation... needs some work; possibly it should be split. It's got a lot of stubby sentences and doesn't flow very well. It also covers a lot of change: at the beginning they were being attacked; by the end, you are discussing the new ruling party's policies. Try to find a natural point to break it up.
  • Done Most important governmental posts - this is unclear. Do you mean "the most important governmental posts" or "most of the important governmental posts"? Rephrase to suit.
  • Done short lived - hyphenate.
  • Done in over 200 states including the United States - perhaps using "USA" would be nicer, to prevent the "state" repeat.
  • Done The ARF-affiliated - sudden wikilink of ARF, which is at the least a link to a disambig page, and at the most a link to the page you're reading.
  • Done Paragraph beginning The passing of Catholicos Garegin of the Holy See of Cilicia... is unclear. I think that the names of these people have places attached too, but that's making it very hard to follow. If by "passing", you mean "death", then say it - we avoid euphemisms. Try to generally rephrase the paragraph to make it clearer.
I've got up to the start of the Modern History section, so will come back and review the rest of the article in a bit. Trebor 19:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll maintain that the templates still don't really make sense (but you know I think that by now ;)). Anyway:

  • Done "a Free, Independent, and United Armenia." - it's a quotation, so needs a citation.
  • Done it played a leading role - again, a reference is really needed to assert it played a "leading" role; "leading" implies that it was extra special or inspired others. Alternatively, replace it with a different word.
  • Done tracing behind the PANM - tracing? I don't know what is meant by that.
  • Done Today - probably better to say something which isn't time-dependent, for instance "as of 2007".
  • Done second largest - hyphenate.
  • Done National Assembly although it currently holds 2 seats - comma after Assembly.
  • Done Beirut's big Armenian community - large instead of big sounds better to me.
  • Done First two sentences in criticism have "often criticized" and "often been criticized" which is repetitive.
  • Done ARF members have also been accused of assassinations - not additive to anything before, so no need for "also". Possibly link to the next sentence to avoid the awkward "such was the case".

That's all I've got from an initial run-through of the prose. When you're done with that, I don't mind having another look at the article as a whole: content, weighting, style etc. Also, I haven't yet looked at the References section. I'm happy to keep suggesting improvements for as long as you're happy to look over them. :-) Trebor 00:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, more things:

  • Done In the interest of trimming the lead to the bare essentials, I don't think which declared its independence from Azerbaijan in 1991 is relevant enough for inclusion.
  • Done A member of the ARF is called Dashnaktsagan or Tashnagtsagan in Western Armenian - ambiguous - is a member called Dashnaktsagan or Tashnagtsagan, both in Western Armenian, or is a member called Dasnahktsagan normally and Tashnagtsagan in Western Armenian. Needs clarifying (hope you followed what I said).
  • Done The ARF's history dates back - could just be "The ARF dates back".
  • Done and to gain an eventual - remove the "to".
  • Done independence, it being - possibly use a semi-colon instead of a comma - the sentence is otherwise a bit snaky and hard to follow.
  • Done It was instrumental - bit of a tense problem, the previous thing referred to was "the Dashnaks" (plural). So change it to something like "they were instrumental" or "the party was instrumental".
  • Done Convert the bullet-point list of government ministers into prose; just separate them by a semicolon or something.
  • Done Ref 44 needs an accessdate.
  • Done You may want to separate notes and references, just to avoid confusion. See Chaco Culture National Historical Park for an example of how it's done.
  • Done (I made significant changes here, I turned "Diaspora" section into "In exile" sub-section and removed the part about organizations into a separate section titled "Affiliate organizations") .I'm not sure about the titling of the sections. Sections 1-3 seem, to me, simply to be a continuous history and fairly arbitrarily divided into Origins, ARF in the Armenian Diaspora (which shouldn't contain ARF per MoS and Modern History. Perhaps they could be combined into a single section "History" with appropriate subsections, although I'm not exactly sure which way is best. But the headings definitely need the word "ARF" taking out of them.
  • Done (big paragraph on its political and ideological philosophy added to "goals" section which was turned to "Political philosophy and goals" section) Once you do that, it seems the article is a bit heavily-weighted in terms of history compared to the other sections. I think the Goals section could be renamed and expanded into a general overview of their political philosophy (if sources are available). Perhaps Criticism could be expanded a bit too. I'm not certain here, as I can't find any other FAs on political parties with which to compare.

This is getting there, I feel. Trebor 18:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still a couple of accessdates missing. Other than that, I would now advise getting someone else to have a look at it; a fresh pair of eyes would be helpful. Trebor 12:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou

Very nice indeed. Some prose issues only (sometimes the prose gets choppy), and some wordings that could (maybe!) attract POV criticism. I think the article is comprehensive, and covers its topic satisfactory. Most of my remarks treat minor issues:

  • Done "The Dashnaktsutiun is also the most politically-oriented of the parties active ... " Parties (at least, this kind of parties) are political by definition (that is why the article is Wikipedia is Political party). So, I don't fully understand what you mean that it is the most "politically-orientated" political party.
  • Done "it being the only solution to defend the Armenian people from Turkish oppression and massacres that were widely present in the Ottoman Empire." I don't know if being the only solution may be regarded as POV. I would go for a wording not treating whether this was the only solution or not.
  • Done(kept greek alphabet but combined problematic citation and note) "people from Turkish oppression and massacres that were widely present in the Ottoman Empire.[6][β]". I have been criticized in FAC for having in an article of mine in some sentences both a citation and a note in a row like here. Maybe you could combine them, keeping the note and citing in it. I had been also criticized for using the Greek alphabet in notes (I shouldn't have said that!).
  • Done "The party began to organize itself in the Ottoman Empire in the early 1890s and held its first major meeting in Tiflis, Georgia in 1892.[9][3]" Minor, but I would prefer to have citations in their correct order: "The party began to organize itself in the Ottoman Empire in the early 1890s and held its first major meeting in Tiflis, Georgia in 1892.[3][9]"
  • Done "As a result, the ARF leadership decided to actively defend Armenian churches.[10] This caused many ARF casualties in 1905.[10]" How did they defend them? Where there violent clushes?
  • Done "In 1915, Dashnak leaders were deported and killed alongside other Armenian intellectuals." Avoid stubby, one-sentence paragraphs like this one, which, by the way, sometimes look "orphan".
  • Done "it contributed to organizing a social and cultural framework aimed at preserving the Armenian identity." Uncited, and, I do not know, maybe a bit verbalist. Again, this may be just my personal preference (the verbalism; not the lack of citation!)
  • Done "The Armenian Revolutionary Federation held 9 of the 33 seats in the National Assembly of Nagorno Karabakh, an ethnic Armenian enclave that was assigned to Soviet Azerbaijan under the leadership of Joseph Stalin in the 1920s". When I first read this sentence I got confused: I thought ARF held 9 seats in the Assembly in 1920! Then I understood that this was before 2005 (and since when?!) But the sentence does not say that. Maybe the whole section needs some rephrasing, and a clearer chronological order.
  • Done "In the 2005 Beirut elections, the ARF was disgruntled because four seats normally reserved for Beirut's large Armenian community had gone unopposed to Hariri's candidates.[44] It called for a boycott.[44]" Choppy prose. This "it called for a boycott" IMO is not nice at all. You can have here just one, well-constructed sentence.
  • Done (added new english titled map:)) The nice map in "Political philosophy and goals" is in Armenian. Any chance to turn it into English?
  • Done In "See also" section I see article already linked in the main text (like Operation Nemesis). Clean it up. IMO the best solution is to get rid of this section, and linke these articles in the main prose, if you think that they are useful for the reader.
  • Done "When the powers of Europe virtually disregarded the massacres of 1895-1896, members of the Dashnaktsutiun, led by Papken Siuni occupied the Ottoman Bank in August 26, 1896." You know, wordings like this one ("massacres disregarded by the powers of Europe") could be regarded as POV by some reviewers. In any case, before going to FAC, try to "shield" the article against claims of bias.
  • Done "The Russian Empire collapsed in 1917. As a result, in the winter". I wouldn't start a new section with such a short sentence. You can combine with the next one and make a very nice introductory and explanatory sentence.--Yannismarou 16:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carabinieri

Hi, I've only read the article through the "Role in the Young Turk Revolution" section, but it looks good so far and close to FA. Here are a few issues I've found so far. I'll read more some time this week.

  • Done The statement "It is the largest political party amongst Armenians in the diaspora, having affiliates in over 200 countries." could be kinda problematic, because "largest" usually implies most members in this sort of context. Is that the case? Then that should also be said, if not then the term "largest" is misleading and the sentence should be rephrased, IMHO.
  • I do not understand what "most politically-oriented" means in this context. If it is a political party, then its obviously politically-oriented, but how are other parties less "politically-oriented"?
    • Response to your comments on my talk page: Do you think something like "Compared to other Armenian parties, the ARP's activities have been mostly focused on political topics and less on educational and cultural projects" (probably needs to be rephrased to sound more fluent) would work?--Carabinieri 23:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done "The ARF dates back to the Ottoman Empire, where its members armed themselves into fedayee groups to defend Armenian villages and gain an eventual independence in order to escape the Turkish oppression and massacres that were widely present in the Ottoman Empire." That sentence needs to be somehow re-phrased and probably split up into several sentences.
  • Done "although they sometimes subsided this goal in favor of a more realistic approach" what kind of more realistic approach? More autonomy? An example would probably be appropriate.
  • Done What is the Armenian name for the "Federation of Armenian Revolutionaries"? It should probably be added in parentheses even if its very similar to the "Armenian Revolutionary Federation".
  • Done Why is "Armenian Revolutionary Federation" in quotation marks, but Federation of Armenian Revolutionaries is not? Both contexts refer to the name itself. Decide one way.
  • Done The article uses both "Huntchakians" and "Hunchaks" to refer to that party, which is kinda confusing.
  • Done Section headings: I think "Activities in the Russian Empire", "Activities in the Ottoman Empire", "Role in the Young Turk Revolution", "Role in the Iranian Constitutional Revolution", and "In exile" should be changed to "Russian Empire", "Ottoman Empire", "Young Turk Revolution", "Iranian Constitutional Revolution", and "Exile" respectively.
  • Done "Opposition leaders including Ahmed Riza (liberal), Sabahheddin Bey, and Khachatur Maloumian of the ARF were in attendance." sounds like all three were ARF members
  • Done "The ARF decided to cooperate with the Committee of Union and Progress, hoping that if the Young Turks came to power, autonomy would be granted to the Armenians." that's redundant, was already mentioned at the beginning of the paragraph.

I hope that helps.--Carabinieri 16:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done The "Democratic Republic of Armenia" seems to mostly re-tell the history of the country during this period. I realize it's important to give the historical background, especially with topics like this one, where most readers often won't know much about the context, but I think it would be better to concentrate more on the ARF itself in this section.
  • I removed a few off topic sentences...the rest I find important so that it flows a little and doesn't jump randomly so that clueless readers don't get lost.
  • Done The modern history section claims that "After Armenia fell under Soviet control in 1920, the ARF, now dispersed throughout the Armenian diaspora, fought Soviet rule over Armenia and championed the cause of Armenian independence". Shouldn't there be a section about the Armenian SSR, which describes these activities. In the "Exile" section it sounds like there were (almost) no activities by the ARF in Armenia for over 70 years.
  • In fact, ARF did not do anything inside Armenia SSR's borders as it was completely banned. I cleared it up so everyone understands that. It did however try its best to fight soviet influence from the diaspora.
  • Done The division into a history section (19th century-1991) and a modern history (1991-present) seems odd and kinda arbitrary to me. Why not merge the two sections and re-name the "Armenia" sub-section to "Post-Soviet Armenia" or something like that?
  • Best thing I could come up w/ was change History to Early history, sectionize Exile so that I could include Lebanon as a sub-section and then create section entitled Post-Soviet Armenia w/ 2 sub sections (Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh)
  • Done Shouldn't the "Nagorno-Karabakh" section give some information on the ARF role in and opinion on the conflict in that region?
  • Added info on how it armed fighters, gave moral support, supplies etc and how it supported independence since day 1.
  • Done Shouldn't "Lebanon" be a sub-section of "Exile"? The order of the information in that article also bothers me. It starts with the political situation today, followed by the party's history since 1956 (what about before that?), and then comes back to discuss the current situation. The first paragraph should probably be moved to the end of the section. I'd also like information about the ARF in Lebanon from 1920-1956.
  • Did turn Lebanon to sub section of Exile, inserted the first paragraph to the end so that it flows chronologically. But I don't think there is much information on them from 1920 to 1956 in Lebanon as this period did not have any notable event except the slow establishment of the ARF in Lebanese-Armenian life. I tried searching the web and google books but nothing came up. I added sourced info of ARF in Lebanon from 1923 to 1958 where the Hunchakian and ARF figures were involved in a mini-sectarian strife.
  • Done I think the criticism section should be dissolved. The information should be added to the appropriate sections in the article. I'm not a big fan of separate sections for criticism overall, but it really seems superflouos in this case. It makes it seem like you're trying really hard to conform to NPOV. It would be better to make the article as a whole balanced.
  • Criticism is now gone. I have included all the information in the old Criticism section into their rightful sections.

Some overall comments:

  • The article still needs some copyediting. I tried to help with this, but I'm not very good at it either. Try to find a good copyeditor to help you. WP:LoCE might be helpful.
  • There are some POV issues. I take from your user name and your user page that you have a strong pro-ARP and especially pro-Armenia POV. This isn't in itself a problem, but unfortunately I think it has influenced this article to a certain extent. I don't know much about this topic and therefore can neither point to any specific parts of the article, which I find problematic (except for some phrases like "mercilessly slaughtered"), nor help improve this (I could insert my personal POV, but that would be really counter-productive). Do you know of any Wikipedian, who is knowledgeable on Armenia-related topics and whose POV is opposed to yours? It would be good if someone like that would look through the article.
  • I would like to repeat that aside from the issues listed above, I think the article is really well researched and referenced and very interesting. Great work!!! Just a few steps away from FA IMHO.--Carabinieri 23:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Home Run Record in Home Run Derby

  • I'm Wondering what you think about this article. Do you think that there is something missing. Should there be a explanation of the rules even though its mother page has that info. Metsman 21:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A number of minor edits
  • Numbers before dates
  • Numbers not in bold
  • Trim down second section to only the top 10

Buc 10:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Gurs

This article was translated by several editors, including myself, from the Spanish Wikipedia version, which is featured. As a result of that, it doesn't have inline citations, and may not be as comprehensive as is the FA or even GA standard here on the English Wikipedia. Any other advice on improvement to this article would be very appreciated. --Fsotrain09 20:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Montessori method

This poor article is in need of a lot of help. Unreferenced sources, POV language, and lots of fluff. Anything people could would be greatly appreciated.

Especially citations of actual criticisms from valid sources. Thunderbolt16 06:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fairy tale

I am aiming to get this article up to Good status and want advice on what it needs. Goldfritha 04:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More discussion on the cross-cultural dissemination of fairy tales might be helpful. Other than that, it looks very good. I am putting this up as the selected article on Portal:Folklore in hopes of drawing more attention. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
cross-cultural (make note). Research will be necessary, so this may take some time.
Thanks for the link! Goldfritha 19:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added a section on the dissemination. Will add more, though -- as the section explains -- that is an area fraught with difficulties. Goldfritha 04:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing -- thanks! Goldfritha 22:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Galaxy

This vital article has undergone considerable expansion and I think it has reached a level of quality where it is about ready to be a Featured Article candidate. But before moving forward I was hoping to get peer feedback to make sure it is ship-shape and sufficiently thorough. (This is primarily a summary-style article on the subject. I'm counting on the sub-article links to cover individual topics in more detail.) Your helpful comments would be much appreciated! Thank you. — RJH (talk) 20:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the lede sentence: "...a massive, gravitationally bound system that consists of stars, an interstellar medium of gas and dust, and an unknown dark matter." Should that read "an unknown amount of dark matter"? I don't know enough about the physics to say definitely yes, but just grammatically it sounds like something is missing there. Even if the statement is scientifically valid, an English-speaking layperson will be somewhat confused by the phrasing. Fsotrain09 23:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fsotrain: The nature of the dark matter itself is unknown, but not its mass. I believe that is what the first sentence is attempting to get across. Would "an unknown form of dark matter" be better? — RJH (talk) 19:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Either that or "...and dark matter, an unknown substance." Some noun taking the adjective's modification besides the term itself. -Fsotrain09 22:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We don't know that it is a substance (which I take to mean Baryons), so I'll go with "type". Thanks. — RJH (talk) 17:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JFK (film)

I am requesting any input, comments, suggestions, etc. to improve on this article. Count Ringworm 16:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My 2 cents:

  • "which purports to follow the 1967 to 1969 investigation led by New Orleans district attorney Jim Garrison (played by Kevin Costner) as he investigates the assassination of President Kennedy. " Run-on, and whenever you dicuss rumour, please get a citation.
  • you need more in-line citations.
  • Expand your lead per WP:LEAD.
  • The first line in "About the film" looks very much like, if not containing the exact information from the first sentence of the lead.
  • "FK stars Kevin Costner, Gary Oldman (as Lee Harvey Oswald), Ron Rifkin, Donald Sutherland, Kevin Bacon, Tommy Lee Jones, Laurie Metcalf, Jay O. Sanders, Sissy Spacek, Sally Kirkland, Joe Pesci.." Don't list these people her! You already do in the infobox.
  • " Stone directed it..." Stone who?

This needs a lot of work. The errors shouldn't be to hard to find. Once you eliminate obvious errors, I'l help. Just leave a talk message. Evan(Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!) 19:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Count Ringworm 21:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've been working away at paring down that section. I created a new one, Historical Inaccuracies which took a few of the trivia bits away. Count Ringworm 20:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Historical Inaccuracies would need changing from list into prose etc., or it would be seen as another trivia section. LuciferMorgan 03:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jupiter

This article was the ACID winner for the week of December 27. Since then, the article almost instantly became a GA, but failed horribly in the nomination for FA. I was wondering how to improve this article for FA status. You can see the FA nom at WP:FAC. Diez2 16:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll second the suggestion about working on the FAC issues first. The page is in good shape; take care of the FAC concerns and it will be ready for another nomination. Marskell 17:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to see more detail on the radio emmissions. They are mentioned and you would expect to read more in Jupiter's magnetosphere - but no. GB 09:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC) It looks as if I may have to add it in myself![reply]
    • I added in a paragraph, but I would appreciate it if you could check for accuracy or improvements. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 00:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Its looking much better now, the reference is good, but that refers to spaceweather.com that does not mention it.
      • Perhaps there could be more on the L-Waves sweeping rapidly from high frequency to low frequency (sounding like popping) and S-Waves (sounding like waves) and frequency in the HF band from 10 to 30 megahertz with concentration around 21 megahertz. GB 05:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The FAC nomination is now at (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jupiter/archive1) for more comments. I can see a few missing ISSN and ISBN numbers, stray quote in reference 2, note 36 title does not match what it points to. ("NASA's Hubble Space Telescope Finds "Blue Straggler" Stars in the Core of a Globular Cluster). in Jupiter: The Giant Planet, Second, Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institute Press. should that be a second edition?
  • In the info box the surface pressure is listed 74kpa, but the pressure of the atmosphere goes up far more than that, and there may or may not be a surface. It may be better to dispence with this or reword to say that the composition was measured at this pressure. Instead have a pressure at the centre which will be many Gpa. Also the temperature would vary due to abiadatic heating as you go deeper in the planet.

GB 05:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Now I see that there is a box on the bottom with all the moon listed but the a hide/show button. This is not mentioned in the "moons" or natural satellites paragraph which does not ahve a complete list, but the box on the bottom does. (I am not sure how this is fixable)GB 06:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elimination of Fraternities at Williams College

This article seems like it was cut 'N pasted from willipedia, the Williams College version of wikipedia. The format seems odd...I'd like a second opinion or two. Contributions would be appreciated as well! SERSeanCrane 08:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Olympic medalists in cross-country skiing

I would like to get feedback on what it would take to make this article a featured list. This is one of 57 similar lists (see Category:Lists of Olympic medalists) and I would like to see them all reach FL status. As far as I can tell, the only shortfall relative to the Wikipedia:Featured list criteria is the lack of photos of any medalists. All other criteria appear to have been met, but of course, I would like any feedback to the contrary! Any opinion on whether or not it is mandatory to include athlete photos would also be appreciated. Andrwsc 07:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Kennedy

Article on an influential politician, is currently a GA, requesting general feedback to boost it to FA level. Thanks. -- Wikipedical 05:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My 2 cents:

  • Not too necessary, but you may want to find a citation for the first line: "Edward Moore "Ted" Kennedy (born February 22, 1932) is the senior United States Senator from Massachusetts and a member of the Democratic Party." Just find a list of democratic senators, it shouldn't be too hard. FA review will see the citation, and they'll like the article at the start.
  • "In office since November 1962, Kennedy is presently the second-longest serving member of the Senate, after Robert Byrd of West Virginia" This is a big claim, citation please. Again, it shouldn't be too hard to find.
  • "and is one of the most influential and enduring icons of his party." Watch out. Such large claims lead to WP:PEACOCK violations. For such a large claim, again a citation should be found.
  • P.S. I'm a big pain about citations.
  • "He is known for being a skillful backroom negotiator who occasionally works with Republican legislators and presidents to reach an acceptable compromise." This is rumour, remove it or verification/citation should be added.
  • on the first line of the new section, address him as "Ted Kennedy" Not just "Kennedy."
  • "he was caught cheating on his final examination in a Spanish class" Citation, please.
  • "Kennedy then entered the U.S. Army for two..." The 'then' interupts flow.
  • "(won by Yale 21 to 7)" Say "(Yale won, 21 to 7)."
  • "Kennedy caught Harvard's only touchdown pass." Big boast, citation please.
  • Upon the second paragraph in family and youth, you switch tenses.
  • In the career opening section, you may want to just cite something as an authoritive proof that these are the commities he's on.
  • "Kennedy's career in the Senate has frequently attracted national attention." Broad claim, citation please.

This is all I can do at this time, drop a line when you're ready for more. Remember, the reason that I'm asking for so many citations is that this article makes broad, swooping claims, which FA review hates when unsourced. Evan(Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!) 00:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool World

For a film that I hate, this is a lot of work I've put forward. How are my efforts? I think there's a GA nomination here. (Ibaranoff24 23:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I'm short on time, so I'll just do what I can now and come back later.

  • You have fair use rationales. Good.
  • The cast section is really bothersome. You took it straight from IMDB, and it shows. Cut it down to the important characters, and then for the characters you left out of the plot give a short summary of who they are. (You should probably use "*" instead of ":".)
  • Why are you linking to individual pages in external links? Who would really want to jump to page 3 of an article that they know nothing about?
  • Incorporate the trivia. That is a red flag to any GA reviewer.
  • Is the fan site link necessary?
  • The cast section usually follows plot.
  • Take some images from the character pages and put them in the plot section. (As a side note, I don't think these characters merit their own page as they are only characters in one poorly received movie.)
    • Again, the character pages, not my doing. The film has some fans and they did some early work on the page. I would have put in some info about the very few fans the film has, but I didn't, because I didn't want to get too much into original research there. (Ibaranoff24 05:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    • Additionally, I found all of the images from the former character pages to be unusable. I added one newly-uploaded image from the official Bakshi website into the summary. (Ibaranoff24 06:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • The lead is choppy. 4 very short paragraphs and one misplaced comma.
  • The plot is usually written "... then John Doe (famous actor) opens the door to realize that his wife, Lorraine (famous actress) really is an axe murderer..." not "famous actor plays so-and-so". I see you switched later, go back and make the earlier ones conform.
  • Wikilink the actors in the plot.
  • Infoboxes don't have commas or ampersands.
  • Explain Cool World in the first paragraph of plot.
  • Why are each of these words wikilinked "sexy blonde humanoid female doodle"? Maybe "humanoid" and "doodle", but I hope everyone knows what "female", "sexy", and "blonde" means (this is the internet afterall :P).
  • Two consecutive sentences open with "During his prison sentence" and "While in jail". Condense.
  • Only wikilink doodle once.
  • "Frank Harris, aided by his partner Nails the spider-like doodle, keeps a sharp eye on Holli and Deebs, but eventually Holli and Deebs have sex and Holli turns into a noid." Run-on.
  • "Deebs and Holli head to Deebs's home dimension or universe, but the barrier between the Cool and real worlds has been thrown out of balance and Deebs and Holli repeatedly turn into clown-like doodles." Run-on.
  • The conception section is one big quote. Not necessarily a bad thing, but the section is also called production, so you need to talk about budget, development time, animation problems, etc.
  • Expand the response section with more views. Pick the three most major reviews and put them in there.
  • Did this affect anyone's career? Especially Bakshi as this was his return.
  • That's all I can do in 20 minutes. I'll try to do more later.--Supernumerary 04:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestions: "The film flashes forward to 1992, where we meet Jack Deebs"- in academic writing, "I", "we" and "you" are strongly discouraged and don't sound to good. The production section towards the end turns into Wikiquote; I understand your motives for quoting at length, but I'd surround it with a bit more prose. Cast section is bare and lacks prose- the production section contains some casting info, and I'd move that down there. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 05:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, one more note: since you didn't write the plot, have you checked it for ugly copyvios? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 05:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there's no problem there. (Ibaranoff24 15:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
The article is phat. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except now the images are cluttering the article. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 19:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted. Not my change; can't be held responsible. (Ibaranoff24 06:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The Notorious B.I.G.

This article has had problems with neutrality/weasel words, which I've tried to fix, and some debate over the amount of album information included. Has the article overcome enough of this to meet GA- or higher standards? Laalaaa 20:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou

Nice job. But it needs some further "polishing", in order to "shine". This is my review:

  • "Christopher George Latore Wallace (May 21, 1972 – March 9, 1997), also known as Biggie Smalls (after a gangster in the 1975 film Let's Do It Again), Big Poppa, Frank White (from the film King of New York), and The Notorious B.I.G. (Business Instead of Game[1])". From all these names, why do we choose "The Notorious B.I.G." as title of the article? Was it more often used than the other names? What makes it more special?
  • Note 1:"After he switched from dealing drugs to rap; see [1]". This is an external jump. These jumps are not nice. Prefer link containing text.
  • "Born in Brooklyn, New York, Biggie grew up during the peak years of the 1980s crack epidemic." What is your point here? What had the "crack epidemic" to do with his growing?
  • In general, my impression is that the flow of the lead is not so good. An X statement is not so well connected with the next V statement.
  • "Biggie was noted for his storytelling and freestyling abilities, and his easy to understand lyrics." His "easy" or his "ease"? And to understand what exactly; the meaning of the lyrics? Why is this notable? Don't other rappers understand lyrics?
  • "Christopher Wallace was born ... ", "Wallace had started ...", "In August 1995, Biggie's protegé group ...". Choose a name for him? I think you should only use the title's name "The Notorious B.I.G. ...".
  • "In March 1992, Biggie featured in The Source's Unsigned Hype column, dedicated to aspiring rappers and was invited to produce a recording with other unsigned artists, in a move that was apparently unusual at the time." Why was it unusual?
  • "Biggie's first child, T-Yanna, was born on August 10, 1992." Was he married or not?
  • "With his new daughter in immediate financial need ... ". Why was she sick?
  • "Once discovered by Combs, Biggie quit and became a full-time hip hop artist." Quit the drugs' dealing you mean? How did Combs convince him?
  • "This was his first remix to chart that featured solely hip hop artists." I asked for a citation here. Try to have at least one citation in each paragraph, and to cite all the important assessments.
  • "In August 1995, Biggie's protegé group, Junior M.A.F.I.A. (Junior Masters At Finding Intelligent Attitudes), released their debut album." Why hadn't you told us earlier that he had created a protegé group? When was it created?
  • "Biggie continued to collaborate with R&B artists, in 1995 appearing with Bad Boy groups 112 (on "Only You") and Total (on "Can't You See"), both charting in the top 20 of the Hot 100." Try to avoid one-sentence stubby paragraphs like this one.
  • "In the summer of 1996, he arrested at his home in Teaneck, New Jersey for drug and weapons possession charges.[6]" But you had told us that "once discovered by Combs, Biggie quit and became a full-time hip hop artist." Had he really stopped dealing drugs? Is your first assessment that "he quit" accurate or not? He did stopped, but then restarted?
  • "and that Biggie had adopted his persona". What do you mean here exactly?
  • In "Style" there is a tense mixture; present tense in one paragraph and past tense in another one.
  • "TIME magazine write Biggie raps with an ability to "make multi-syllabic rhymes sound... smooth".[32] Krims describes Biggie's rhythmic style as "effusive".[33] Before starting a verse, Biggie sometimes uses onomatopoeic vocables to "warm up"" The prose is a bit choppy here.
  • In "Lyrical content" I see the verb "describe" repeatedly used, and I also see once again a tense mixture.
  • "Before his death, Biggie created a hip-hop supergroup called The Commission, which consisted of himself, Jay-Z, Lil' Cease, P. Diddy and Charli Baltimore. " I think this should be a part of his biography.
  • Get rid of "Trivia"! Such sections are no longer esteemed. If the info there is useful, incorporate it in the main text.
  • Get also rid of "See also"! The links there are already linked in the main text, and, if one or two are not, you can easily link them (if you think they are necessary).
  • Notes 31 and 32 are empty.
  • Alphabetize categories at the end of the article.--Yannismarou 14:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestions. They're very helpful. Re: names, I was trying to refer to him as Wallace until he uses "Biggie" as his rap alias, but it does make more sense to use one name throughout the article. Laalaaa 19:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


BFeen

"Since his death, a further two albums..."
→At the least, fix the grammar. At the most, "Biggie's presence over rap music and hip-hop culture continues to influence modern day artists, as many cite, both explicitly and implicitly, him as a seminal influence in their lyrics, styles, and videos.

Childhood and Youth section
"These experiences with crime, drugs, and violence would serve as inspiration for Biggie's lyrical content and persona. In the song "Sky's the Limit," he centers the story around his school-day drug-dealing.

U.S. Capitol shooting incident (1998)

I would like to see some further development of this article. I think it could be a good or even featured article in the future as there is a lot of information regarding this incident on the web. I have focused on creating as many citation as possible but I think that has hurt my "flow". Your edits and suggestions regarding this article are appreciated! --Daysleeper47 21:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carabinieri

  • The lead section is too short, some information that could be added: why did this man attack the Capitol?, what happened with him afterwards?, some details from the event, etc
  • I personally dislike the order in which the information is currently presented in the article: I think a background section should detail the perpetrators mental illness and so on and that the information in the "the officer" section should be merged into the other ones. But this could all just be a personal preference of mine.--Carabinieri 16:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The see also section should be removed. The U.S. Capitol shooting incident (1954) could and probably should be mentioned in the background section I proposed as should Denis Lortie's actions if you think they are relevant. "If it's not worth mentioning in hte article it's not worth mentioning at all."--Carabinieri 16:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uncyclopedia

This article has changed a lot since the last time it was reviewed. I'm aiming to get this to be a good article by the end of the year. --Jedravent (talk) 00:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AnonEMouse (squeak)

Amazing, I wouldn't have thought this subject could be written about so well.

  • also known as Chronarion[3], -> Chronarion,[3] move the reference tag after punctuation, not before
  • Add more "retrieved on" dates to the references. Some have them, some don't. "Uncyclopedia joins Wikia." for example. For a wiki, the date it said something is very important! Same for author, write that Angela Beesley wrote that one.
  • Were Chronarion and Stillwaters originally Wikipedia editors?
  • leading to the deletion of many new articles.[24][6] move the earlier ref before the later one -> [6][24]
  • There seems to be some overlap about the Chinese/Taiwanese encyclopedias and their blocks between Criticism and In other languages sections. Are there two different blocks, the Golden Shield and Great Firewall, or are these the same thing?

All in all, surprisingly good, I can't think of much that needs to be added. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done all except the Wikipedia editors part. They do have accounts (User:Chronarion and [[User:Euniana]) whose contributions started before Uncyclopedia's creation, but I'm not sure how to cite them properly. --Jedravent (talk) 21:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Queens and Empresses of France

I really like this list and am hoping that soon it'll be up to the standard of freatured list; I was just wanting to see what improvements people thought could be made, etc. Sotakeit 16:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aang

Previous peer review
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article has gone through four GA nominations (succeeding in the last) and one FAC (failed). I really need extremely close-up feedback on the prose. I have tried copyediting it myself, but I am not sure. I really need as much advice as possible. If you see any other problems with the article, mention it here to. Thanks, — Parent5446 (t n c e m l) 21:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

No expert by any means but please accept comments of a layman...

  • "...one episode of the show. The exception was "Zuko Alone"." consider merging so you don't have a tiny sentence.
  • "(that has never been aired)" never really understand why significant text is in parentheses so flow it into the prose.
  • "with the unique ability" meaning they have a single ability or no-one else in their universe can do this?
  • "One century of his ..." probably more elegant to say that he was in suspended animation for a hundred years...
  • Plot overview section needs work on merging the paragraphs, six is too many, more like three for this amount of material.
  • "claim the events are part of canon." - what does this mean (to the non-expert)?

Sorry I can't help more, but hopefully some of these comments are of use. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the problems you mentioned. I hope the article is OK now. — Parent5446 (t n c k e l) 19:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although it may take a while, the League of Copyeditors may be more what you want (line by line) - see WP:LOCE. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article already has a LOCE request. Unfortunately, I cannot wait for them because by the time the League responds, it will be 2009. In fact, the request has been in for at least a month, if not two. — Parent5446 (t n c k e l) 02:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate 295 (Delaware-New Jersey)

This article was recently expanded, and had a failed GA nomination (although it is currently under review). Any and all tips to make it a better article would be much appreciated. -- NORTH talk 00:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the use of template:scaps in the exit list. We're talking about the exit leading to Route 33 east, not trying to duplicate exactly what's on the exit sign. --NE2 01:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's an issue with the exit list guide, not the article. -- NORTH talk 04:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although now that I look at the talk page for the exit list guide, there clearly wasn't any consensus to use {{scaps}}, and one of the examples on the guide doesn't use it. Gawrsh, am I embarrassed. (I still think that it would be best to have a full discussion on WT:IH/ELG rather than here or on the I-295 talk page.) -- NORTH talk 04:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I implemented the only suggestion I thought was applicable – the non-breaking space between units – putting the &nbsp; in for one; on the one that was just an approximation, I spelled out the number "five".
The only images that do not have captions are the shield images, which do have captions in the sense that the route is linked to immediately after the image. The article obviously does have an infobox, and the only date that isn't linked to (that I could find) is in the title of a reference.
There might be some issue with overlinkage in some editors' eyes, but I think all the links are relatively spaced out (with the exception of inside the exit list). Also, if there's any copyedits someone can catch, feel free to fix them – I might be somewhat inept since it's mostly my writing. -- NORTH talk 00:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Big O media

As per SidiLemine's suggestion, I'm putting this article through peer review with the intention of going to WP:FLC.--Nohansen 22:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GunnarRene

Here a pseudo-random review. (I've removed irrelevant parts)

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[1]
  • Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.
  • Avoid using contractions like: don't, won't, won't, haven't, hasn't.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, GunnarRene 01:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And one more thing: Before you move to featured list candidate, at least a majority of the episodes should have articles, as per FLC criteria 1 a. --GunnarRene 02:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't notice the videos from Youtube were removed. Thanks for fixing that. I'll see to working on more sources... I sort of threw together the list over the span of a few weeks. Looks good though, if I do say so myself.
Also: I was going to create episode specific articles, but was discouraged from doing so. See here. Anyone else have a say in this? Episode articles: in or out?--Nohansen 02:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, creating episode artiles should perhaps wait untill you have encyclopedic info to justify their creation. I also wanted to not make episode articles, but to be a featured list you need to list something with "blue links", and I was also getting more information than what would comfortably fit within a list. I also needed to refer to individual episodes. So that's why I created articles.
In any case, do all the other stuff first, and save episode articles to last. And if you can, give feedback on the RahXephon FLC above; negative citicism is very much appreciated too, for the improvement of the list. --GunnarRene 03:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"but to be a featured list you need to list something with "blue links"". While it is true that large amounts of red links are discouraged in FLCs, the existence of links is not always important. -- Ned Scott 20:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, and List of Planetes episodes is a good example. --SteveA026 20:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That list had an article for each and every episode that only included the same plot summary as in the list, and I believe that was also the situation when promoted. Ned Scot recently redirected all the episode titles to the list and de-linked them. And rightly so. If an unlinked plot summary is the main focus of the article, then that is not something which we should have. And I agree that we should promote otherwise good episode lists even if they don't have an article for any episode — as long as it's good in other ways.--GunnarRene 22:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I created this article, following the guidelines in WP:EPISODE, and now it's been redirected to the media list. Any reason why this article was singled out? I understand SteveA026 had a problem with "forum posts as references", but couldn't you just remove the link?... Which, by the way, isn't a "forum post" in the pejorative sense of the phrase. It's just that the Save Big-O site has their episode synopsis in a forum. See here: "All the synopses have been completed, we just need final edits for some of them. If they are not yet posted to the main synopsis section you can find them in the forum.--User:Zola"
Oh, and by the way: SteveA026 created a List of allusions in The Big O. I like the idea. Any thoughts?--Nohansen 23:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Guess I jumped the gun on that edit. I took your comment on my talk page (and lack of response on the article's talk page) to mean that you changed your mind about the individual episode articles. Oops.
And about the sources, I thought three was kind of excessive anyway for a short, to-the-point episode summary, so we're not damaging the credibility of the article by removing the forum source. TV.com alone should be sufficient to give us the info we need. --SteveA026 18:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Set

A vital article and a core idea in Mathematics. I'd like advice on how this article could be expanded, and what is needed to bring it to good or featured status. Thanks! CloudNine 18:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CMummert

There are many ways this article could be improved. Most sections are trivially short. Here are some particular comments in no particular order.

  1. As it stands, this article is extremely redundant with naive set theory, almost to the point of duplication. This has been a problem for a long time, but someday it ought to be resolved.
  2. This article is an appropriate place to discuss the philosophical questions associated with sets, which I would be interested in reading and which would not fit into the technical articles. For example, Penelope Maddy is widely rumored to have claimed that sets exist in some "physical sense".
  3. There is no mention of extenstionality in the article, but this is one of the things that makes sets into sets. Like they say, there are no blue sets.
  4. The concept of the cumulative hierarchy is missing.
  5. Can a set be a member of itself? Of course the axiomatic treatment doesn't belong here, but some discussion does.
  6. The sections on basic operations could be grouped together (union, intersection, relative complement).
  7. There is no mention of Russell's paradox except as a "see also" link. This is, historically, an important step in the understanding of the technical limits of the natural language term "set".

CMummert · talk 02:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trebor

I gave the article a bit of a copyedit; hopefully, I didn't change the meanings. I think the article works well as a basic introduction to the theory of sets, but needs more background information. There is very little detail on the history of sets, or their application to Mathematics in general (except in the lead, and the lead shouldn't introduce anything that isn't expanded upon later). A bit more background information (with references) would balance the article and provide a more well-rounded look; at the moment, it's more of a textbook than an encyclopaedia article. Trebor 16:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. My main worry now, with including the History and Applications section, is that naive set theory will be a duplication of Set (the set theory article already duplicates a lot of information about basic set operations). What do you think? CloudNine 18:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I'm not very knowledgeable on sets so I may end up talking rubbish. But I would say that Set should be a summary of both naive and axiomatic set theory. Then it would include a summary of the history and development of both, describe any features that they have in common and explain how they have been used in Mathematics to do "notable stuff". At the moment, the article is (I think) focused more on naive, which could be seen as POV. But since I don't know which features they have in common (if any), it may be quite hard to write an article that encompassed both. I just think that the general article Set shouldn't focus on a particular definition too much. Trebor 18:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opabinia regalis

It's a bit simple, isn't it? The content that's there is fine, but it's very elementary - sort of pages 1-5 of an introductory text. I'm only passingly familiar with set theory, but surely there should be something on countability here? The 'history' section is currently blank, and there's not even a link to ZF anywhere. Other more minor issues:

  • Images are prime candidates for SVG-ifying.
  • Top image is lamely cartoony; it's like Donald Duck's Guide to Sets.
  • FA and GA will whack you over lack of inline citations. Most of this stuff is trivially self-verifying, but when you add more background/history and more advanced material, make sure to add references where appropriate.
  • While you're motivated to improve articles on this subject, uncountable set is badly disorganized. Opabinia regalis 03:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rangers F.C.

Has the potential to be a featured article (or good article at least). Statistics and such are fine, but sections regarding things like history (as in we have none). could do with a review. Archibald99 15:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the article requires major work before it is ready for FA or GA status. I think the main issue with the article is that it is written to give bits of information a fan of Scottish football might want to see, rather than a general reader. Put yourself in the place of someone who has no knowledge of Rangers, or even football. Would the article give them a decent general understanding of the subject? Look at existing football team FAs for ideas on how to do this. A few suggestions:

  • I disagree on statistics - they take up far to much of the article, which contains very little prose. Get rid of the UEFA ranking section, it adds little knowledge for the reader, the same goes for the list of minor club officials. The reserve/ youth team listing is unneccessary.
  • Why are the "notable players" on the list notable?
  • History - suffers from acute Recentism. The History section should be a concise version of History of Rangers F.C., see the guidelines for summary style.
  • Good to see that the article doesn't duck away from the issue of sectarianism, but the section currently says in effect "Sectarianism exists in Scotland. In the 1800s Rangers started as Protestants, Celtic as Catholics. Both clubs recently admitted sectarianism is a problem". Make it clear why it is a problem, and how it has come to be regarded as such. Bear in mind that with a such a controversial subject, nearly every sentence requires a citation.
  • No mention of Rangers having been Scottish champions more times than any other club in the lead?
  • Stadium section - Where did Rangers play before Ibrox? The lead says Ibrox is in south-west Glasgow, include this information here too. What do the front and rear bits mean? No mention of either Ibrox disaster?

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 21:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lead should summarise the clubs achievements - they are one of the most successful clubs in Scotland, so a count trophies won etc. would be informative.
  • Detailed discussion of the name could go in its own section.
  • Ugh, the history section is hideously biased to the present day. Trim the "Recent History" down to a single para, slinging the rest out to History of Rangers F.C. Another 4-6 paragraphs should be added dealing with the club's history before 2006.
  • The section on sectarianism starts strangely and reads like a school textbook; we don't need a dictionary definition as the first sentence. The whole section is written arse-backwards - it should explain the clubs' backgrounds and then the consequences. It needs a rewrite. Though I don't want to get embroiled in this too much, a suggested structure would be:
Rangers' most distinct rivalry is with Celtic FC, the other major football club based in Glasgow; the two clubs are collectively known as the Old Firm. Rangers' traditional support has largely come from the Protestant community, while Celtic's has come from the Roman Catholic community. Consequently, the rivalry between the two clubs has often been characterised along sectarian lines. Both Rangers and Celtic now accept that they have a problem with sectarianism, and both admit that a proportion of their supporters have been, and continue to be, guilty of perpetuating partisan, sectarian beliefs as well as cultural intolerance.
  • Further explanation of the sectarian situation should follow, especially on how it is expressed by the club's supporters (flags, songs etc.) - the article should not assume what the song Billy Boys is about. The 2006 case could be abridged slightly, and other past disciplinary cases (if any) should also be mentioned. Needless to say, citations for every assertion in the whole section are needed.
  • Stadium section - where did Rangers play between 1873 and 1899? Also things such as who designed Ibrox, the two disasters there, any major reconstruction work that went on, suitably summarised in 2-3 paras.
  • Notable players needs an objective and verifiable criterion for inclusion. It could maybe be merged with the 'Greatest team' detailed below.
  • List of managers could do with P/W/D/L stats.
  • Remove the reserve squad - the articles linked to from there should also be checked to see if they satisfy WP:BIO.
  • List of every last member of the staff should be trimmed - we don't need to know who the kit man is. Ideally I would have nothing there, but at the very most, only coaching staff associated with the first team should be included.
  • The trivia bulletpoints in the Honours should be merged into a main History section
  • Use of tables, as it stands, in the Honours section is sinfully ugly.
  • Records section could be split off into a separate article.
  • UEFA Ranking can be removed - WP:NOT a news service.

That'll do for a start. As so much rewritin is required I would suggest a second Peer Review once the article is redone, to stand a decent chance of GA/FA status. Qwghlm 15:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I feel there is no reason to duplicate comments here, so I'll just write that I agree with the reviews of Oldelpaso and Qwghlm. In short; more prose, less stats. – Elisson • T • C • 17:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colombo

This article has been changed significantly reasontly, I have strucutred the article after Seattle, Washington featured article. Needs to be peer reviewed. I want to know

  • whether it covers all the required sections?
  • Anything else that needs to be included?
  • Does it have enough images?
  • I have some great 19th century historcal images would it be too much?
  • I think grammar could be improved, could you help?

Thanks  «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  (T) 15:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It can be improved by reducing links to solitary years. A monobook tool allows this to be done with one click on a 'dates' tab in edit mode. You can then accept or reject the changes offered and/or do more editing before pressing 'Save'. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. Hope that helps. bobblewik 19:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Peer review request
After the last peer review it seems this article has changed drastically what else could be improved to make it to he featured article status? Please respond ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗTalk 10:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Perhaps the old peer review should be archived (see instructions above, though it might require admin tools now)? Then again, it would not really be that necessary. APR t 21:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For featured article status, the article will need a lot more footnotes (nowadays, the bar seems to be at least 15, depending upon the subject of the article). Naturally, print references would be preferred.
    • Undoubtedly the most popular sport in Sri Lanka is cricket. Undoubtedly a footnote would be necessary.
    • Numbers generally need citations, like in "Geography and climate".
  • I would suggest expanding the two paragraphs of the WP:LEAD, neither of which extends beyond 2 sentences. In fact, they pretty much can be combined, and a separate paragraph can summarize other topics below.
  • "Official Vision and mission" is a stub section. Remove the two subheadings, unless you plan on expanding them. WP:MSH suggests that 'Vision' -> 'vision'. Btw, both quotes need citations.
  • Needs a spell-check: meanining, coast line, liase (?), south east, North-East, jewellery
  • Some odd comma usage which hampers readability. The north and the south parts of the city are hilly and the east, and south east areas are bordered by marshy land.
  • See WP:DASH; replace hyphens indicate ranges w/ endashes. (ex: March – April)
  • MOS:NUM : Missing conversions b/w the metric and US systems and &nbsp; (non-breaking spaces). See Rainfall in the city averages around 2,400 mm a year.
  • Mistakes and typos regarding the position of the footnote in terms of the period. It should follow the period, w/o a space (not [1] . or .[2].). User:Gimmetrow's User:Gimmetrow/fixRefs.js fixes this w/ a click (it is also included in the PR script).
  • There are scattered grammatical problems.
    • Sri Lankan masterpieces at the Art Gallery wrong preposition
    • for two of the country's international cricket stadiums, Sinhalese Sports Club The club is not a stadium.
  • See WP:LAYOUT about the last couple of sections.
  • My overall suggestion would be to start by first resolving the simpler style problems (WP:MOS, WP:GTL), and then increasing the level of content (as there are several stubby sections, and the WP:LEAD is skimpy) while carefully citing sources. Finally work on fixing the grammar and making the prose brilliant. Best of luck, APR t 22:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


In addition to the suggestions mentioned above, I would suggest expanding the history section. The Dutch and British eras are somewhat sparse, and don't really provide that much information that someone who is completely unfamiliar with the history of Colombo, like me, would benefit from reading. Oaxaca dan 04:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood North

This article has been having a bit of a rough time in the last month or so. It's been greatly expanded and the neutrality of it continues to come into question. It would be nice for some outside opinions on the direction of the article. Mkdwtalk 10:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dragons of Autumn Twilight

I did some work on the article a while back and got it to B-Class, but I'd really like to move it up hopefully to GA. I'd basically enjoy any and all comments on general improvements to get it to GA status, and in addition it would be very helpful if you could describe the coherence of the plot summary from the perspective of one unfamiliar with the topic. Thank you! DoomsDay349 03:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It looks decent. Some of the paragraphs are rather long and could use some splits. I was hoping to find something in this article about the book's influence on TSR's fantasy fiction publishing business. Also any sort of critical review information would be good as well. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 19:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trebor

It's getting towards GA-class, but needs a fair bit of work. My thoughts:

  • The lead is a little short, and shouldn't include a one-sentence paragraph. Expand and summarise the article.
  • The individual title meaning may be a reference... - needs a cite to avoid being original research
  • Even worse - POV statement
  • The plot synopsis is alright, but a bit heavy on jargon and names (I've never read this). Could it be trimmed into a more succinct summary, focusing on only the key characters and events. It also chagnes between very long paragraphs and one-sentence ones - try to keep their lengths approximately equal.
  • Importance to Dragonlance should go above the release dates, to keep the prose together
  • Trivia sections should be incorporated into the text preferably, but this one contains mostly the same type of trivia, so perhaps it could be renamed
  • If there are any professional reviews, they could be put in a new section

As I said, it's alright but a bit unbalanced at present. If you haven't already, you may want to read WP:WAF. Trebor 16:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; I'll take it into account and fix it up later tonight or tomorrow. I'll have to dig up a reference for the title meaning...hm. Everything else seems pretty easy to fix, except professional reviews; they're quite hard to find for this topic. DoomsDay349 21:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine; I was suggesting it in case it had been overlooked. You can only make the article as good as sources permit (obviously). Trebor 21:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I haven't gotten to these, I've been busy the lat few days. Maybe this weekend, if I can. DoomsDay349 02:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No worry, I'm not in any rush :) Trebor 07:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good; Neither am I :) It's taking me some time to get to this..hopefully, I'll have a snow day tomorrow (yay Chardon) so I might get to it. If not, weekend. DoomsDay349 00:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate 90

See Interstate 95's peer review for reason. V60 VTalk - VDemolitions 02:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate 95

Lots of people have been working on this article, particularly members of WP:IH. My fellow members of that WikiProject and myself would like to know where substantial improvements could be made to bring it up to GA-class, A-class, and or FA-class. V60 VTalk - VDemolitions 02:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see the history section moved up and some mention of it in the introduction, "I-95 consists largely of previously-existing toll roads constructed from 1900-1950" or something like that, "and received the designation I-95 in 1953 as part of the Eisenhower Administration's..." etc. etc. Kaisershatner 15:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but to adhere to WP:IH's standards, the history section must stay where it is, but we can make some mention of it in the intro. V60 VTalk - VDemolitions 22:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why must it stay where it is? I remind you that WikiProject guidelines are exactly that, and if it would make the article better (which IMHO, it would), it's something to be considered. I wrote the article on I-295, also up for GA and peer review, using a different project's standards, and will open up discussion on WT:IH on the matter. -- NORTH talk 00:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But "External links" should move down according to WP:LAYOUT. Also, "History" probably would be best off in prose (and why is there a reference to a toll bridge in 2009?) It would be good to add more information to the footnotes; for example, see {{Cite web}}. APR t 01:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update to the article: Okay, I moved the history section to below the route description, I feel it is better in that order than with the history above the route description. I did not add anything related to the history (like suggested) into the introduction yet, but I'll work on that. I swapped External links and References. However, I do not feel that the Tolls section of history would be better written in prose. The subjects in the list work better as children of the section — an "indented list with content" (Wikipedia:Embedded list). Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball, but the toll bridge will happen. The first sentence of the link provided states "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation." The toll bridge that will be on the highway in 2009 currently exists, and will continue to exist after the interchange currently under construction is completed (all sources are documented on all relevant pages). I'm not good with footnotes though, so someone else will need to take a look at that. --MPD T / C 02:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
V60, you might want to consider whether the WP:IH project standards conform to the broader standards for WP:FA if you want to get these articles featured. Just a suggestion. And to start with I would review WP:LEAD. "Some mention" of the history/origin of I95 in the intro is required if you are trying to bring this article in line with "what is a good article." Some additional suggestions would be to provide citations for the following assertions in the intro:
  • Interstate 95 is one of the best-known, most important, and most heavily traveled highways in the Interstate Highway System. [Best known by what measure and by whom? Most important in whose view? Most heavily traveled- have some stats on that?]
  • It is the longest north-south Interstate highway (five east-west routes are longer),
  • It passes through more states - fifteen - than any other Interstate.
  • I-95 is the only long-distance Interstate in the original plans that is not yet completed.

And answer the following:

  • What "original plans" are you referring to in the introduction?
  • If the highway parallels US1, why was it built?
  • and WHEN was it built?

Thanks, Kaisershatner 15:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Updated article: I can't really remember what I did. But the edit changes are here. I added sources for the "longest", and "original plans" (included a 1955 map, the 1957 one has numbering labels on it), but for the "most states", people will have to trust us or count them for themselves. I-90 passes through 12 (MA, NY, PA, OH, IN, IL, WI, MN, ND, MT, ID, WA). --MPD T / C 18:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Other Wikipedia articles cannot be used as references. (Interstate System History is listed as one.) Removed here.-- NORTH talk 21:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christ Illusion

I've been working on this article for a few days, and wish to eventually get it to FA status. I'd like to know what needs to be improved in order to achieve this, and how those improvements can be made. LuciferMorgan 19:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section has been "balanced". If you feel this isn't the case, please message once again. Thanks for your time. LuciferMorgan 00:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say 4 bad reviews out of 6 is negative - that's like 2 to 1. In the section the excerpts from the 4 bad reviews are used, and excerpts from the 2 good reviews. I could change it to "mixed" reviews if wanted? What do other editors feel regarding this? (PS - Thanks for your comments) LuciferMorgan 20:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a lot of one sentence paragraphs,
  • 6/6/06 Arrives, would it be better with just 6/6/06?
  • Avoid using contractions like: wasn't, couldn't, wouldn't.
  • You could remove the chart positions table as you turned it into prose
  • Reviews in the infobox from worst to best or best to worst would look better
I prefer it being alphabetical. LuciferMorgan 07:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Need to wiki-link the band members and mention their full name on first mention
  • Album artwork and lyrical themes, is basically a Controversy section?
  • wikilink the albums there
  • I created a stub on Carroll
  • Indeed, the band, you could remove 'indeed'
  • spaces for references
  • 'however' is used a lot

Just some general wikilinking of people, places, dates, albums etc good luck. M3tal H3ad 03:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At first I thought the "Album artwork and lyrical themes" would be a controversy section, but there was controversy over bus benches too which was better placed in another section. Thanks for comments by the way. LuciferMorgan 11:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the lead needs to be 2-3 paragraphs now, You could probably create a new paragraph solely on the controversy surrounding the album. M3tal H3ad 04:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See if it's possible to find new references to replace some of the Blabbermouth ones. The article is very thoroughly referenced, but it will look better if there is a variety of references (fewer from Blabbermouth). ShadowHalo 07:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try, although Blabbermouth is the main resource in metal, and most metal news sites steal their articles from here also. LuciferMorgan 13:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I'm not repeating the sentiments of any other reviewers but I'll give you my two cents regardless.

  • In the infobox, could you be more specific about the recording dates?
If I had this info at hand, I definitely would've added it. LuciferMorgan 01:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead isn't compelling enough. For it to be an FA, I think you have to improve the flow, link some sentences together. At the moment there is a glut of short, choppy sentences, each presenting an independent fact. Try to develop a more logical progression through the prose, linking more than one piece of data into each sentence.
  • In the first paragraph of "Recording", you reference the same thing twice in one sentence... I'd take out the mid-sentence ref; it's pretty clear where you got the info from.
  • You write out "9" and "11" as numbers. Change to "nine" and "eleven".
  • I'm not sure the plural of "demo" is "demoes".
It's actually "demos" (I checked), so thanks for pointing that out.LuciferMorgan 01:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You surround "Catalyst" with apostrophes. WP:MUSTARD asks that songs be surrounded with quotation marks.
  • "Although accredited, Rubin was not seen in the studio by guitarist Kerry King during the recording of the album [4] and is said (by King) to have only participated in the recording by providing suggestions during mixing.[4] The band wished for Rubin to produce the album,[6] and blamed him for the delay in entering the studio.[6] Around this time, Rubin lent production to Metallica's untitled 10th studio album, an action King deemed "a slap in the fucking face."[6]" I think this section is over-referenced. I think it'd be reasonable to only reference [4] and [6] once each, at the end of each citation. If you don't decide to do this, then you still have to delete the space before the first citation of [4].
  • Again, you write "11", change this to "eleven", and do the same where-ever you've written a number midway through prose.
Done, except where chart positions are mentioned. LuciferMorgan 03:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It says to link to items relevant to the context - I wouldn't deem the date wikilinking so. LuciferMorgan 01:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You shouldn't bold Christ Illusion at the end of the section. In fact, I'd advise you change it to "the album".
  • I think it should be explained why June 6, 2006 would be an ideal release date. Don't expect the reader to make the conceptual leap. Also, bear in mind 6-6-06 works in both American and British dating conventions.
  • "number 48 on the Swedish charts [10]" - delete the space before the reference.
  • Again, I think you go overboard on referencing in the "Bus benches" section.
  • Link "August 8, 2006.
  • "62, 000" and "93, 000" need their spaces removed.
  • I think "Rolling Stone" should be italicised. See WP:MOS to see if I'm right. I'm pretty sure I am.
  • "'God Hates Us All'," needs italicisation.
  • In the KNAC review "Christ Illusion" needs italicising again.

I think I've picked this one clean, I hope I've been useful. Seegoon 17:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, which have been of major use - these would've definitely been raised further down the line at FAC. I'll be sure to get to these concerns. LuciferMorgan 00:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the concerns regarding the lead, and'll try getting help in that matter. LuciferMorgan 01:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you could go down two routes with the lead. One: prune it of details about Lombardo and the Grammy. Or expand it and produce one paragraph on the numbers of the album - release date, chart performance and so on, and another paragraph giving a rundown of the important facts surrounding it: Lombardo, the Grammy, the controversy. I hope that's not too convoluted to read through! Seegoon 20:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've rewrote the introduction of the article - everyone feel free to check. I hope it's an improvement. LuciferMorgan 00:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've improved it, definitely. Seegoon 23:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm unused to improving articles. LuciferMorgan 00:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Yannismarou

Very nice. Some minor remarks:

  • Do not over-cite the sentences. For instance:"Christ Illusion was recorded at two venues: NRG, North Hollywood, with assistant engineering by Dave Colvin,[1] and Westlake Studios, Los Angeles, with assistant engineering by Brian Warwick.[1]" or "Rubin was not seen in the studio by guitarist Kerry King during the recording of the album,[2] and is said (by King) to have only participated in the recording by providing suggestions during mixing.[2]" or "The band wished for Rubin to produce the album,[3] and blamed him for the delay in entering the studio.[3]" or "National Day of Slayer, LLC, describing itself as a "a non-profit corporation in the State of Wyoming," launched a website asking Slayer fanatics to participate in "The National Day of Slayer",[16] where all fans would listen to Slayer tracks.[16]" etc. It is not nice to "cut" a sentence in the middle with citations, especially if the same citation is already at the end of the sentence? What is the purpose using it again in the middle? It is clear it covers the whole sentence. In general, use citation in the middle of a sentence only if it is absolutely necessary.
I've now made efforts to address this - feel free to inspect the article once more. LuciferMorgan 21:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with Dave Lombardo ...". Since you mentioned him once in the lead, "Lombardo" alone is fine. "A song penned by Jeff Hanneman": The same; "Hanneman" would be enough.
  • "A song penned by Jeff Hanneman[4] entitled "Final Six" was meant for inclusion on the album,[2] and "Final Six" was originally declared to be the album's title by vocalist Tom Araya to George Stroumboulopoulous of CBC's "The Hour."" A bit clumsy sentence IMO; especially the repetition of the song's title within the same sentence. In general, the prose is fine, but I'm not sure is yet "brilliant"; maybe a bit more prose polishing wouldn't hurt.
I've tried reworking the sentence. LuciferMorgan 23:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Araya deemed this version "much better because he looked like a drug addict!"[38] King arranged to purchase the artwork.[39] An alternate, non-graphic cover was made to appease conservative retailers who would not stock the original version.[40] Certain album pre-orders gave fans the chance to win one of ten lithos of the artwork autographed by Carroll.[41]" The prose here with these short sentences in a row gets IMO a bit choppy.
I've tried reworking the prose in this section you've singled out. LuciferMorgan 23:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In general, the article is well-written, well-researched and well-referenced. Maybe, some further in-depth analysis of the band's musical choices and themes in this particular album (if therei such info available!) would further improve the article.--Yannismarou 18:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I'll see what I can do. LuciferMorgan 20:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could probably remove the credits section, as you included all the people in the body or add everyone to the credits list. M3tal H3ad 00:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. LuciferMorgan 22:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

M3tal H3ad Comments

I read through it all again,

  • I'm not sure about this but NRG, North Hollywood, with assistant engineering by Dave Colvin, I think it sounds better as , with assistant engineer Dave Colin 'engineering by' doesn't sound that great, but that's just me
  • The second paragraph of the first section, i think Dave Lombardo should be wikilinked as readers may have to scroll up
  • Lombardo's involvement marked the first time that he, King, Araya and Hanneman, 'he' doesn't sound good to me, how about 'that King, Araya, Hanneman and himself had appeared..
  • Also 'together on record since' on record sounds like a police report, 'a record' sounds better but thats just me.
Doesn't to me.
  • "a mix between God Hates" i know its a quote but couldn't it be spelled out fully to give the reader a clearer understanding, also the album is linked two sentences below
I don't think so, as it's a quote. I don't agree with tampering with quotes, so wikilinked the album for those unfamiliar. LuciferMorgan 19:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although eleven songs were originally slated for the album, only ten made the final track listing., i think 'although would be better after the comma. Also i think 'only' implies a small amount, this is just one less.
  • which boasts former drummer Paul Bostaph on drums., drummer Bostaph then says he played drums is redundant
I'm confused - there's no Bostaph quote in the article. LuciferMorgan 19:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, Araya took one I'm not sure why However is there, also gall bladder could use a wikilink.
  • Additionally, an EP named, additionally then later 'this date' so i don't see the need for additionally
  • limited to five thousand copies and exclusively available at Hot Topic stores in the US. My version, limited to five thousand copies, exclusively available at(through sounds better here) Hot Topic stores in the US. Don't see the need for the 'and' and it doesn't sound great
  • The release previewed new track "Cult", which was made available for streaming on the band's official website the same day. The first part could use a 'the new track' 'made' could be removed from the following sentence.
  • John Milton, could use a wikilink
  • The third paragraph of marketing and promo is rather choppy
I agree upon closer inspection. This tends to happen when you merge tidbits of info from several sources. I'll address this soon. LuciferMorgan 19:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • All Music Guide could use a wikilink
  • These three - terrorism, warfare and religion. could possibly be wikilinked
I don't think these should be wikilinked. When it gets to FAC though, I'll try finding consensus as to what should happen. LuciferMorgan 19:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Larry Carroll, who had painted the, name mentioned above in full, just use Carroll
But then again, as your prior point, they would have to scroll up to see who the article is referring to. LuciferMorgan 19:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Joseph Dias, meanwhile, meanwhile could be removed
  • 9/11 terrorist attacks, 9/11 is very American, perhaps September 11
  • Joseph Dias, issued a statement which mourned the cover artwork, this is mentioned two paragraphs above so is redundant and were talking about lyrical content here
  • jihad could be wikilinked under lyrical themes

Most of these suggestions are just my way of preferred writing, some comments might be useful, some might not. Anyway you did a dam good job expanding this article. M3tal H3ad 12:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some I think should be wikilinked, though things like "gall bladder" shouldn't be. LuciferMorgan 19:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know what a gall bladder was(heard of it though) until i heard about Tom's operation, then searched it here. About Bostaph, this is the sentence "existing in an alternate version which boasts former drummer Paul Bostaph on drums." Saying he is the former drummer on drums, is redundant. Regarding the Carroll sentence when reading the first sentence i can still see Carroll's name, with Lombardo it's about three paragraph and the Table of contents above. M3tal H3ad 00:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do regarding the Bostaph thing, though I disagree with it. One, Bostaph is the former drummer, and two the demo still exists so is present tense. Hmm I disagree with the rest though also. When wikilinking, the link has to be relevant to the context and I wouldn't deem gall bladder so. When clicking the subsection "Album artwork" from Contents, you can't see the mention of Carroll. Also "Album artwork" is a new subsection. Thanks for the comments. LuciferMorgan 07:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, regarding the lead Grammy, Billboard 200, Eyes of the Insane could be wikilinked, also it says '#5' later on the article it's number 5. I know you haven't worked on the lead much but when you do. The release previewed new track "Cult" i think could be turned to The release previewed the track "Cult", as it's not new anymore and preview implies it's new. M3tal H3ad 00:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
O the groove metal person attacked Slayer, apparently I'm vandalizing by removing his edits. M3tal H3ad 02:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get onto your constructive comments. As concerns the lead, I'm not sure what else to do, though I'll address the '5' issue. I'm no good with leads really, but I don't see it ending up much different to what it already is, especially since nobody's realled singled it out after I rewrote it. I'll remove the word 'new' as concerns 'Cult', though I'll keep 'preview' since it indeed do that - preview the track. LuciferMorgan 07:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

School Rumble

I need some advice on how to improve this article. Things could be added, removed, modified and polished but I am at a loss on deciding what needs to be done and what should take priority. My main concern is the layout but content is a huge issue as well. --Squilibob 08:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consider expanding the reception and video game sections. In the reception section, make sure to include quotations from multiple sources (including any positive or negative reactions) that address all aspects of the series. Also, see if you might be able to reference the article some more; there are currently no inline citations in the first three sections. Has the series created any controversy (including any books/episodes pulled for one reason or another)? If so, that'd be a good thing to include. For an example, take a look at the Excel Saga article, which is currently a featured article. ShadowHalo 08:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A "Media" section would be nice, that could cover the manga, the animes, the seiyu performances and CDs, the games, and various merchandise. Also, because of the recent cut, the article is lacking in pictures...(but an image for each character is overkill, maybe take a screenshot of the whole class together?) And the reception section is a bit short, but I guess there's no helping that...elaborate the issues with the fansubs or something. Hope this helps. _dk 08:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I have expanded reception and video games which was merged in with the other information into the Media section. Added a picture of the cast from a screenshot of the OP theme and elaborated a little on the fansub issues. I've added some more in-line references and will search for some more. --Squilibob 10:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox picture shows the 2nd season logo from the anime, I think it is better if the one from the first season was put there instead. Because this article is not about the second season....And another point which may not have anything to do with this article...why do the characters all have their own articles? They really shouldn't, in my opinion. _dk 03:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The anime section seems a bit empty. I'm thinking it needs info on the episode format (3 mini-episodes per episode), an episode list and, if possible, detailing the which manga chapters are adapted in the anime.--Nohansen 00:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Fish

Please take a look at the article on a serial killer, and see how it can be improved. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Legacy" section could be cleaned up and prosified. LuciferMorgan 20:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • What a ghastly tale! I've made a few minor changes already but here are others suggestions:
It is mostly nicely referenced, but some paragraphs or parts of paragraphs are without citations.
Delete the space after the fullstops, commas etc before the reference tag
There are some stylistic things I would like to see changed. For example, find an alternative for the word "murder" (killings?) which is repeated too often in the first paragraph
Some sentences are unclear to

e.g. "He confessed to three murders that could be traced to a known homicide";

I was confused by the early life section, which maybe should be reordered a bit. Perhaps all the information about his father could go together, for example, and the bit about the name change and the orphanage go after the point where the orphanage is mentioned.
It would be good to put all the murders and attacks in order as it is strange going back to Billy Gaffney and the other murder after it looks like he should be in jail.
  • Comment I think the current order of the article is best with the information revealed as the case unfolds, rather than chrono order. I tried moving the Gaffney murder first, but most of the information was revealed only after his capture, so it seems out of place that way also. Its a tough call. Both the New York Times summary, and the crime library "events unfolding" order. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Find another word for attack as in the "first attack" since I think raping kids is an attack for sure
Maybe put all the information about the psychiatrists opinions in one block in the trial section, rather than having part of it in the earlier sections.
I don't think Legacy is the right word for the last section. How about References in Popular Culture or somethin like that?

A gruesome life, but there is a lot of useful information there. Well done. --Slp1 23:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Chunchucmil

My colleague and I have been working on this page concerning the ancient Maya archaeological site of Chunchucmil. It is currently rated as a B leveled article, and were hoping to move it through the stages towards a Featured Article. Looking for a peer review to help us get the ball rolling. Thanks in advance! Oaxaca dan 05:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that could use some improvement is the images. The top one looks like it would be most appropriate for a guide on tourism because of the cropping and text. I notice there's also a fair use image there with no fair use rationale (see WP:FURG for more info); my guess is that it doesn't meet the first of the fair use criteria since it should be possible to get an overhead picture of the area. (If it isn't possible because say, the area's off-limits, then make sure to include that in the fair use rationale.) ShadowHalo 08:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the other contributor to that article. I think ShadowHalo's comment about the first image is a good one. I'm going to change it to something a little less "logo" like. However, all images within the article were created by me (original photographs, original artwork) or by my colleagues. I use the "ShareAlike 2.5" for most of the image releases, I don't think there is a Fair Use image. But if so, that was a mistake in uploading. We own the rights to every image on the page. Thanks for the comments!Chunchucmil 13:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I just realized that ShadowHalo was referring to the GoogleEarth image. If a google earth screenshot is not appropriate, I can find other sources. I just thought it would be a valuable image to let readers know that the archaeological site can be seen from space using Google Earth. Again, let me know if this is not appropriate. My understanding (based upon the links available on [[10]]) is that one screenshot of such software is perfectly appropriate on a Wikipedia entry. Chunchucmil 13:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first image (that ShadowHalo found to be too much like a tourist logo) has been removed. I left the Google Earth image in there, pending further advice Chunchucmil 13:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, APR, these minor issues will prove useful to our revisions. We have already begun addressing the points raised by the Javascript bot. However, we would greatly appreciate advice from other (flesh and bone) editors who might provide insight on the content, layout, design, formatting, or other issues (rather than the automated response).Chunchucmil 14:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket World Cup

This is a Peer Review for the article Cricket World Cup which now bears quite a lot of the qualities presented by other FAs such as FIFA World Cup and Rugby World Cup and may better them in some aspects. Please provide constructive criticism for it. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 04:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Barring any good reason, I think that each tournament history should have roughly the same length, so I expanded the 96, 99 and 03 ones to match that of 1975. I think we need to hit the books for some of the other ones. As far as copyediting goes, ALoan and Nichalp are the best ones for the job who have some interest in cricket. Every fact should be supported by refs, so there's a lot of work ahead. Hopefully if this makes FA, it will be allowed on the main page anyway despite having no free pictures due to the histroical coincidence. I like long articles, so I suppose more detail is never a bad thing (My only FA happens to be 100kb, but that's because there wasn't any logical fork - Ian Thorpe) as this article is 42kb (not too big) and seems to have a lot of tables etc, which we don't want to dominate the article too much. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a little too much about individual competitions than that is strictly necessary. The extensive details can be left to the article about the tournament. There should be more about things like the background of the world cups and the political issues. Re politics, it should be difficult to get it from a single source as each one (incl. Wisden) has a strong POV one way or the other. We will have to read up all the arguments and present a summary.
  • We should not get too chatty about miscellaneous facts. The tournament reports contain phrases like "1987 Cricket World Cup held in India and Pakistan was the first World Cup hosted outside of England." "The 1996 championships were held in the Indian subcontinent for the second time", "The 1999 event returned to England after sixteen years", which are all unnecessary because it will be obvious to the reader from the earlier paragraphs. Or if you look at the Cricket_World_Cup#Performance_of_teams, there is some text and a table accompanying it. There is very little in the text that cannot be deduced from the table.
  • Not happy about some sources and the way they are interpreted. The media coverage has the line "The Cricket World Cup is televised in over 200 countries, with over 2 billion television viewers". I had added an invisible comment to it but somebody deleted it silently. This comes from http://www.cricketworldcup.com/icc-marketing.html which is a marketing site which means that we cannot readily believe everything that it says. According to List of countries, there are only 202 sovereign countries, so "over 200 countries" is at the least an exaggeration. A reading of the source would show "over 200 countries" and "televised to over 2 billion" are just estimates for 2007 (and that coming from a promotional site) and not facts. It is best to get the data for 2003 if we want to put it here. I have already corrected some misinterpretations like this and there may be more. Tintin (talk) 06:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all of Tintin's comments. I believe someone with little knowledge of cricket and the World Cup will prefer reading a concise but well written article rather than a detailed one which may bore them. I suspected the media coverage section will cause problems. I couldn't find any good statistics for the 03 WC on the web so we may have to turn to the books for sources. Tony Cozier, a Cricinfo journalist, recently wrote "History of the Cricket World Cup," which will probably have the figures needed. I also agree with avoiding the hosts redudancies pointed out by Tintin. In addition, we should find someone with relative little knowledge of cricket and the World Cup to copyedit or comment on the article. I have a feeling some parts of the article won't be understood well by those outside the cricket world. GizzaChat © 12:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, the infobox doesn't add anything in this case. All of the information in the infobox is redundant. The format of the article is loosely based on the other FAs in terms of headings and structure. Apart from the infobox, the structure is almost identical. GizzaChat © 21:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sub section about 1987 - present in the History section is fine for now but needs to be modified later with about one or two sentences that summarizes each world cup rather than a whole paragraph for each when there's more world cups held (with expceptions where there needs to be more because its something that becomes big part of history for the world cup) or that section would be come too big. But prior to the world cup and the prudential world cups sections are fine as there are big part of the world cup and is basically the main history of it.
  • Also, I think the infobox summarizes the whole article for people who doesn't have time to read through the whole article. And in that list(replying to comment from above) it says "243 entities considered to be countries" and so I don't think it's an exaggeration as it's not taking about sovereign states. I agree with Gaza in that someone with little knowledge about cricket and the World Cup should comment on this article so we can edit out the things that would be confusing to the people not really into cricket.--Thugchildz
I don't believe the infobox needs removing because it is more informative then a picture of the world cup alone. It is not more or less useful than a biography article having an infobox about the person's death, birth and occupation etc. As all these things are presented in the article itself. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 04:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i guess it passed as far as the article being too confusing to the casual people(not into cricket much). and i quote "

Finally read the article. It looks like a pretty good summary. I'm not sure what they mean by "platonic dimensions", or whatever it was. That could use a one-line explanation. It was interesting to note the subtle variations in the short form of the game since 1975. If that version had existed in the 1800s, maybe cricket would be more popular in the U.S. It once was popular, but if they were playing 5-day matches, that would have limited its audience, as most folks had to work for a living, but they could see the occasional baseball game, and you know who won that duel. d:) Wahkeenah 02:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

so i guess it's ok on that--Thugchildz

Charter Oath

Well, this article was just promoted to GA status, with the reviewer commenting that major aspects still perhaps need to be covered. I think that two weaknesses are the importance of the Oath as a symbol among the populace, and whatever if any subsequent effect it might have had on Japanese law and jurisprudence. Perhaps a historical context section, but I'd hate to duplicate Boshin War, Meiji Restoration and Bakumatsu more than necessary. I have my eye on one new source, but I think I've tapped out two major, generalist history texts. I'm perhaps too close to the article. Outside comment and help, obviously and sincerely, desired.--Monocrat 03:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outriggr's comments

I can't speak to comprehensiveness, but a couple of small points:

  • You have a number of in-sentence quotes, and a couple of them aren't referenced. I suggest adding the reference, or removing the quote and paraphrasing. ("less alarming", "language broad enough to embrace both readings")
  • Perhaps related to comprehensiveness: could you fill out some of the concepts? I know people might say "that's what wikilinks are for", but that position in the extreme is not helpful to the reader, and also forgets that there are a variety of ways in principle that this encyclopedia will be read. I am referring to
    • "[Meiji] Restoration", which is mentioned in passing, but not linked (although it's in that category). I don't know what it is.
    • Similarly, with "The purpose of the oath was both to issue a statement of policy to be followed by the post-Tokugawa bakufu government in the Meiji period, but also to offer hope to Tokugawa domains of inclusion in the next regime.", either the sentence structure could use improvement, or I simply don't know what is meant by "domains of inclusion".
    • A third example is "and the last evoked the Taika Reforms"—I had no idea this meant "recalling a set of doctrines established in the year 646 [about?]". And if that part isn't understood by the reader, then the contrastive "although Japan would seek knowledge from the West rather than China" will not be understood as relating to the Taika Reforms.

–Outriggr § 04:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outriggr, thanks for spotting those! I think I've addressed them. The Taika comment was unsourced, and I haven't been able to find anything, so I've cut it for now.--Monocrat 04:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Also, may I suggest rearranging the sentence order in the lead to make the topic initially clearer:

The Charter Oath is considered by political historians to be the first constitution of modern Japan. The Oath outlined the main aims and the course of action to be followed during Emperor Meiji's reign, setting the legal stage for Japan's modernization. It was promulgated at the coronation of Emperor Meiji of Japan on April 7, 1868. It remained influential, if less for governing than inspiring, throughout the Meiji era and into the twentieth century.

–Outriggr § 05:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The lead generally needs expansion and reorganization, so I'll keep that in mind for now. If you spot anything else, let me know!--Monocrat 05:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Air (visual novel)

I have requested a peer review to Air (visual novel) so that perhaps the article could be built up to Featured Article status.---- (十八) 02:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
    • Avoid misplaced formality: “in order to/for” (-> to/for), “thereupon”, “notwithstanding”, etc.
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, SenatorsTalk | Contribs 03:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I entirely agree when looking at such featured articles as Serial Experiments Lain and Excel Saga that seem to have almost no Japanese reviews of the series.---- (十八) 07:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excel Saga got a lot of flak about it though. I was actually surprised it was able to pass with those objects still unanswered. Plus, I think the FA reviewers might expect reviews for a game more than a TV show. Additionally, considering the series has not been licensed outside of Japan, I think reviewers may be less lenient. Filling up with a bunch of reviews for an English release is one thing, but only having English reviews of a Japanese exclusive is a bit unbalanced. All I'm saying is that the issue is bound to come up in a FAC, so we should try to deal with it ahead of time.--SeizureDog 09:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Eretria

A recently created article, I would like to see what can be done to improve it. Kyriakos 23:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Lokshin

Off to a good start. Some comments, in no particular order:

  • The heavy reliance on Herodotus is not necessarily unacceptable, but it would be better if additional (secondary) sources could be found. I don't know what might be available, but the Greco-Persian Wars are certainly a topic that modern historians have written something about.
  • The writing style is very simplistic, with almost no complex sentences. Whether this is a good or bad thing is quite subjective, I suppose; but I would suggest making at least some efforts in this regard.
  • I'm not a fan of having two separate footnote sections; but this is, again, likely quite subjective.
  • The images should probably be staggered along both margins.

More generally, this will likely need considerable copyediting in the future, regardless of how you decide to proceed with the other points. Kirill Lokshin 02:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

StudyAndBeWise

I just updated the article to use Harvard citations and references. However, I left the sources. In any event, the main suggestion I have is to cut back on the citations. For example, I saw one case where several consequtive sentences had the same citation to the same page. You might want to consider only citing the last sentence in such cases. I know citing each individual sentence might make others less likely to remove sentences, but I don't think this will be an issue for the Siege of Eretria article, unless it is controversial. I'll look through a history book and see if it is commented on, and add some more (just to get a larger variety of references). However, any history book is likely to have relied on the same primary source you did. Anyway, thanks for the good work.

If you have some time to review The Origin of Species, I would appreciate it.

StudyAndBeWise 01:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou

  • "In 490 BC, Darius organized a fleet of around 600 ships and an army of between 20,000 to 60,000 men." Important assessment and controversial estimation needing some citing.
  • ", the instigator of the revolt, went to mainland Greece to seek support for the Ionians' cause, and the Athenians gave him twenty ships and the Eretrians five." Stubby paragraph.
  • Kirill is correct when he says that the lack of complex sentences leads to a "simplistic" or "choppy" prose. Check for instance this half-paragraph, which IMO is an example of this choppy prose: "Also part of the fleet was Hippias, the former tyrant of Athens who had been overthrown in 508 BC. He had been promised Athens in return for assiting the Persians.[17] The fleet which consisted mainly of Phoenician and Ionian ships met the army in Cilicia and from there they sailed to Samos.[18] From Samos they sailed Icaria and from Icaria they attacked Naxos.[19] The Naxians were not prepared for the attack and when they saw the advancing Persians they fled to the hills.[20]" Another example:"They soon reached Euboea and they demanded soldiers from the city of Carystus.[23] The Carystians refused to supply soldiers as they didn't want to be involved in a campaign against their neighbours, Eretria and Athens.[24] The Persians after a brief siege eventually forced the Carystians to surrender and supply troops to the growing Persian army.[25] The next stop after Carystus was Eretria."
  • The heavy reliance on Herodotus could be a problem. I'd prefer a parallel use of secondary sources; they often offer interesting prespectives.
  • "The failed attack caused Aristagoras to lose his favor in the Persian court so he decided to stir up a revolution amongst the Ionian Greek cities." Doesn' this sentence need a , or a ; ?
  • Why do you mention the same references twice; once altogether and then divided in primary and secondary sources?--Yannismarou 19:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian Invasion of Mani

I just finished the inprovement of this article. I added the three battles of the camppaign into one article. I want to improve this article and every suggestion is well come. Kyriakos 23:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Lokshin

A number of points that can still be improved on, I think:

  • The multiple infoboxes are quite excessive visually, and don't really add to the article. I would suggest removing all of them except the main one for the campaign.
Done
Done
  • Are there any non-Greek sources available for these events? If there are, it would be helpful to incorporate them, I think.
Barrow and Fermor are the only ones I can find so far, I'll for some others.
  • Extensive copyediting would be appropriate, at this point. The prose seems simplistic, at least to me; I would suggest making some effort to employ more complex sentence structure, rather than simply chaining together simple sentences.

Hope that helps! Kirill Lokshin 03:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tutmosis

Can the image usage rationale be expanded. Specifically where they came from. Especially Image:Ibrahim.PNG, who granted it permission to be used under GNU? Full dates should be wikilinked, while single months/years should be de-wikilinked, Example from text: August. I noticed that some of the footnotes are exactly the same, please refer to this guide on how to combine some of them. Thanks. — Tutmosis 18:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PocklingtonDan

Just a few minor points, since I'm not sure if this peer review is still actively ongoing or not:

  • "The various Greek forces won a quick string of victories, however, disputes broke out amongst the leaders and anarchy ensued". Change to "victories. However,"
  • "He then tried to capture Nauplio but he was driven back. He then turned his attention to the only place in the Peloponnese that was free: Mani" If he was driven back from Nauplio, surely that was also free?
  • "Even though this campaign is overshadowed by other battles of the revolution, this one was one of the most important. The Maniates stopped the Egyptians and Ibrahim Pasha who had not been defeated this desicevly before" Decisively is missplet, all this needs cites. - PocklingtonDan (talk) 13:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HM-15

As this article represents the first submission by this submitter, this submitter is looking for constructive comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duane Phillips (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the note on "personal experience" - point well taken. I am concerned about the "Other Notables" section of the page. Three of the four items listed are not likely to be referenced by any third party. I have been searching high and low for any write-up that former Commanders of that squadron should have written, but alas, there are no online reports for the years during the USN/USNR integration. I now understand that WikiPedia is a source of reference, not truth, as the wide open contribution paradigm has no ability to be a validating source of previously undocumented truth. --Duane Phillips 22:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trebor

I would work on finding reliable references. Unfortunately, your reference of "Originating author personal experience" is in violation of our "no original research" policy which prevents people from writing information that isn't verifiable. Trebor 23:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looper5920

Go easy on this. I think the user sent this thing up a bit to early. Give some more experienced military editors a few days to work on it and it will look much better. Right now it has some serious issues and really shouldn't be here. --Looper5920 00:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Munir Bashir

My main question about this article is, well is it long enough? Do you think it has enough information, or does it make you feel like you wanted to read more in the end? Any ways of improving the article? An overall review of this article would be greatly appreciated. Chaldean 18:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not read it in detail, but one thing is for sure: the article needs inline citations per WP:CITE and WP:FOOTNOTES, if you intend to go for GAC or FAC.--Yannismarou 21:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Execution of Saddam Hussein

Overall peer review, as requested by IP user on talk page. ~ UBeR 16:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly does the job. ~ UBeR 22:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amenhotep I

I've been working on this article off and on for about six months, and since it just passed GA, I believe it time to expose it to greater scrutiny. Its major failing is that I alone have written most of the text, and accordingly it may read perfectly fine to me, since I have experience in the field, but it may not make a lot of sense to a layperson, and that is the kind of problem I want to flush out to fix. In general, confusing areas, styalistically awkward places, and big blank spots where you think somthing hasn't been covered enough would be good things to point out. Thanatosimii 05:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

High School Musical

Article is starting too look pretty good and has been cleaned up a lot. I'd like to know what else we can do to help the article. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 23:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trebor

As a general pointer, you may like to look at the Wikiproject Film Style guidelines. My thoughts:

  • The Plot Summary (could just be named Plot, or Synopsis) needs work on the prose and could probably be cut down a little. Try to avoid stubby paragraphs with only one or two sentences.
  • The Cast section could be done as in the Style guidelines, e.g. "Zac Efron as Troy Bolton:" Then, the information in characters could be put with the appropriate cast member.
  • There is a mix of citation styles, some inline and some embedded external links. I'd stick with inline citations throughout.
  • There should be more information on the Development and Production of the film - at the moment, a lot of the article is in-universe
  • There are also a lot of lists and tables, which break up the article too much. For sections like Awards, try converting them into prose.
  • It could do with more references throughout. Trebor 23:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I notice there's currently no section on critical reception. Consider adding one, with quotations and references to reviews of the movie and/or soundtrack. —ShadowHalo 08:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

F-Zero GX

Needs a push to get to FA. Any thoughts?--Clyde (talk) 22:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trebor

  • The dates in the lead should be wikilinked for date preferences to work (see WP:MOSDATE) or you might want to remove them altogether and just say "released in 2003" (it just seems slightly detailed for the second sentence + it's in infobox). Done
  • but introduces a new element - not a contradiction of the first bit, so no "but" needed Done
  • story mode, the player - perhaps could be "where the player". Done
  • This adds strategy and replay value - original research without a cite (if I'm being picky). Done
  • Repetition of variety in in the first paragraph of Gameplay - use "range" or another similar word Done
  • characteristics including Top Speed, Grip, Boost, and Body - it's been a while since I've played, but aren't they the only distinct characteristics? That would make including a misleading word Done
  • First of all - "of all" = redundant, plus there should probably be a "second" later on instead of "additionally". Done
  • "side attacks or spin attacks - remove the first "attack". Done
  • players can play - what else would they do - sounds a bit odd. Done
  • etc is an abbreviation of a Latin term and shouldn't be used (see here
  • In essence - redundant Done
  • players regard snaking as anything from legitimate and advanced racing strategy, to an unfair tactic, or even outright cheating - needs cite Done
  • The "story mode", which is new to the series - been told that at least twice before then, bit unnecessary (or at the very least could be changed to "the new story mode" cutting out 5 words) Done
  • its amazing visuals - POV: it has been credited for its visuals, or it has been described as having "amazing visuals", but the current version implies that "its amazing visuals" are a fact
    •  Done? added fact tag
      • Oh, maybe I was unclear. It would be fine so long as you remove the word "amazing", leaving "It has been credited for its visuals" (that version would imply it has good visuals, without stating it as fact). Trebor 23:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The game's most common criticism is its difficulty - cite, cite, cite - most common criticism is quite an ambitious thing to prove, but will at least need multiple sources
    •  Done added fact tag
  • Soundtrack needs expansion or could be merged into Development, two sentences does not a section make. Done

There's potential, but it needs a fair amount of work before getting near featured standard. Trebor 16:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the easy stuff has been taken care of, and I added fact tags for future work.--Clyde (talk) 23:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good work, I'll give it another run through tomorrow :) Trebor 23:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miami International Airport

I would love to see this article becmoe featured. If you have any comments on how this can happen please do so. Arigont 21:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trebor

This is a long way of featured at the moment. Main problems are a lack of referencing (and an inconsistent style within the article - some are inline citations, others are embedded external links), far too listy, and not enough content. See Montréal-Mirabel International Airport for an airport featured article (albeit one that also has referencing issues). Trebor 16:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Risk (game)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Risk (game)/archive1
Wikipedia:Peer review/Risk (game)/archive2

After much work, I feel that this article is very close to becoming FA. It needs someone to do a grammar check and suggest where I should include more citations. Granted, there is still one section that I still need to add a little bit more to, viz. the official Risk versions section. However, I plan on working on that as people give me suggestions. Thanks. :D b_cubed 05:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Review by Clyde

I took a look mostly References. Here we go.
  • There is a lot of OR in this article or it simply is not citied. A few random examples are (not all-inclusive):
  • "In the most recent rulebook, three variations are given."
  • "The official rulebook suggests variations to the gameplay mechanics for "Risk experts,""
  • Some sections are missing a citation. While there is no law that there must be X citations in an article, it would be wishful thinking to believe someone could read a whole paragraph or section without challenging a single fact in it. Hence, you need more citations.
  • Standard setup. There's no proof that what is written is the proper order or accepted practice of beginning the game.
  • Player turn. There are seven paragraphs present, and it is a stretch to believe all of that without any refs.
  • Basic strategy. How do I, the reader, know the official rulebook said that? Cite.
  • Popular Culture. See if you can find something out there about the episode, and then look for a mention of Risk in the write-up.
  • You have a bunch of rulebooks in the external links section of the article; you're the expert here (I don't know which one to use) but find one to cite anything and everything.
  • Several sentences are POV and need a reference and possibly rewrite for FA standards. A couple examples (Not everything)
  • "Compared to other military board games, Risk is relatively simple and abstract."
  • "Setting up the Risk board for play is more involved than in many other games."
  • It looks like most of the refs are in cite web (you might want to make them all cite web), which is good, but try to flesh them out so every single one has a publisher and wikified publishing date.
  • Reference 8 is simply Risk II. If you must remove the lid to open a paint can, it is better to cite the directions or an FAQ rather than the paint can itself. Just a suggestion.
I think that'll get you started.--Clyde (talk) 15:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dominick Argento

I have been working steadily on this for a while and would like input from other editors as I am pretty much the only one who has touched it. Any and all comments would be helpful; I have fantasies of bringing this to FA status some day. I know there are a couple of redlinks to be fixed, and I know there is a lack of pictures - I would love suggestions on how to get more pictures into the article. Thanks!--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 16:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

T-26

Given that it failed A-class review, and I recently expanded the article a bit, I would like more input on how to make the article better, especially somewhat specific suggestions to improve the prose (which is lacking). Thank you. JonCatalan 04:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Lokshin

This is quite good. The prose is a little dry in places, but that's a relatively minor stylistic quirk; having a couple of fresh editors copyedit the article should smooth things out. Aside from that, a few formatting issues:

  • Dates need to be wikified for date preference settings to work correctly.
  • The "See also" section should be gotten rid of, if possible.
  • The references for the tables would work better placed as footnotes, I think.
  • The lead could perhaps be expanded slightly to summarize the main points of the article in a bit more detail.

Kirill Lokshin 05:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the quick response! I made some quick changes, including eliminating the "See Also" section, changing the reference style for the tables and changing the summary a bit (although I hope that some better writers will take some time to make it a bit more interesting). Where would I be able to read on Wikipedia's date preference settings? Again, thank you. JonCatalan 05:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The best place for date settings is WP:MOSDATE, I think; I vaguely recall that there was a simpler guide floating around somewhere, but I don't remember its location. Kirill Lokshin 05:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made as many edits I think I can properly do as suggsted by Kirill Lokshin and the automated peer review. I would appreciate it if anybody else took a look at the article. Thanks! JonCatalan 04:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed as well. Fixed some dates that had not been converted to WP:MOSDATE format, found a few minor grammatical nits, and linked to some of the German divisions that are specifically referenced. In a few places, I replaced slang with more straight-forward language ("tweaked Panzer I turret" became "modified Panzer I turrent", as this usage of "tweaked" may not be clear to non-native English readers). --Rjray 05:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Comment: I'd like to focus this peer review on what would be required for FAC regarding this article. Obviously, the prose needs work. Anybody have any tips? JonCatalan 05:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, if you're out of ideas for copyediting, you might try asking at WP:LoCE; aside from that, the issue is mostly playing with the wording until it sounds right, and that tends to be an extremely subjective thing. Kirill Lokshin 05:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tears of the Black Tiger

I believe this is a good article. It is the most thorough compilation of facts about the film that I'm aware of. — WiseKwai 14:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

  • "With a story involving the tragic romance of a fatalistic, working-class hero who has become an outlaw and the upper-class daughter of a provincial governor, the movie is equal parts homage to and parody of Thai action movies of the 1950s and 1960s and melodramatic romantic tearjerkers." This sentence bothers me. First thing is the who clause needs to be off set to make it clear, especially because of the length of this sentence. "With a story involving" sounds wordy. Does the film parody all romantic tearjerkers or those from the same time as the action movies? You also mix calling it a "film" and a "movie". Pick one and be consistent. Here's a possible rephrasing, which I don't really like either, but it might help you out.
    • "The film centers on the tragic romance between a fatalistic, working-class hero, who has become an outlaw, and the upper-class daughter of a provincial governor. As such the film is equal parts homage to and parody of Thai action movies of the 1950s and 1960s and melodramatic romantic tearjerkers."
      • Took another shot at it.
  • "the Dragons and Tigers Awards for Best New Director" Maybe you can find a wikilink for this, if not it's no big deal.
  • "It was purchased for distribution in the United States by Miramax Films, which changed the ending and then shelved the film indefinitely." Rephrase from passive to active.
    • Done.
  • You forgot one fair use rationale for Image:Tears5.jpg, and I also changed the fair use rationale for the poster to a more standard one. Otherwise they look good.
    • The one image I didn't upload. Surprised I missed it, though.

Plot and cast

  • At first glance, the plot has lots of random wikilinks. White? Plain? Knife? Bullet? Beach? etc. Please cut out the unimportant ones.
    • I like white because it talks about what it represents. The others probably won't survive the cutting.
  • The plot is approx. 1,890 words long. It needs to be condensed, and if that is not possible explain why.
    • Since condensing it will change everything, I won't proofread this section as my suggestions might end up being unnecessary. I'll gladly do it after the condensing though.
      • I knew it was too long, but had no idea it was that long. Yikes.
        • I've cut the plot down to 1,000 words, which is probably still too long. But have a look and see what you think, if you want.
  • Are any of the other actors deserving of a wikilink in the cast section?
    • The other actors deserve a wikilink, but have no articles. I dislike the look of too many red links in cast sections, so ...
  • Plot review follows
  • "Dressed all in black and wearing a black cowboy hat, " I think you can cut the second black especially because you have a picture of it. Also specify the wikilink to the symbolism section.
  • "The bullet ricochets around before it hits its target – a man's forehead." Why not simply "The bullet ricochets around before burrowing into a man's forehead."?
  • "off a variety of items" possibly just "off of items" considering you wikilink Rube Goldberg
  • How does the first paragraph, which is only two sentences, connect with the second one?
  • "Mahesuan is bitter about Dum taking his place as the best gunman in the outlaw gang headed by the brutal Fai. Mahesuan finds Dum playing a harmonica. He knocks it out of Dum's hand and baits him into a gunfight. The quick-drawing Dum fires first. Mahesuan is not injured, but a dead snake drops from an overhanging tree branch onto Mahesuan's cowboy hat. Dum killed the venomous snake, saving Mahesuan's life." This is choppy; make it flow.
  • "Dum then thinks back" You wikilink "thinks back" to "flashback", which does show that it is a flashback but only if someone clicks through. If it's important explicitly state it, otherwise leave it as is.
  • "Dum then thinks back to his childhood 10 years ago during the Second World War, when Rumpoey and her father had to leave the city. They came to stay with Dum's father, a district chief, at their small farm in rural Thailand." He can't think back to what other people did when he wasn't there, so he should be the subject. Maybe:
    • "Dum then thinks back to his childhood 10 years ago during the Second World War, when Rumpoey and her father left the city to stay on Dum's father's small farm in rural Thailand."
  • "which is called "Sala Awaiting the Maiden"" Why is this important? A wikilink (or a clause) to Sala would be nice to explain that.
  • "Dum says a woodcutter built it to await the daughter of a wealthy family whom he had fallen in love with." You're missing a comma and "whom" currently refers to the wealthy family.
  • "filled with some boys." Is the some needed?
  • "On the way home, they collide with another boat that is filled with some boys. They taunt Rumpoey, and Dum fights with them. He is struck with an oar and the boat overturns. Dum rescues Rumpoey but is late in coming home. So he is punished by his father, who lashes the boy's back with a rattan cane. Rumpoey feels sorry for him and buys Dum a harmonica to replace the flute she broke." Needs to flow.
  • "In shock at seeing Rumpoey's face, Dum is stabbed in the chest with his own knife and allows Kumjorn to escape." Ouch! I can see why he let him escape, but who stabbed him? (Active trumps passive most of the time.)
  • "a gang of male students – the same boys from her childhood boat accident." Why not just a comma?
  • "Dum comes to her rescue, but ends up expelled" You need to review comma usage. You use them when not needed and don't use them when needed. Your most common mistake is the one quoted, where you have a single subject with two verbs. Here a comma is unnecessary. Below you leave out a comma where you have two subjects with two verbs. In this case, a comma is necessary.
  • "he’d given it" Don't use contractions.
  • "Fai then hands Dum a pistol and tells him to finish the job of killing the men who murdered his father. Dum is now an outlaw." Join these two sentences.
  • "Shifting back to the present, it is the night before Rumpoey's wedding." I'd make it "Shifting back to the present, where it is..."
  • "Rumpoey tries to hang herself, but is stopped by her maid. Fai plans to attack the governor's mansion. Mahesuan, suspecting that Dum intentionally let Kumjorn go free, betrays Dum. A gun battle ensues, but Dum escapes." Choppiness caused by trying to link all plot lines together at once.
  • Specify the wikilink for "white".
  • "Fai's men attack and Mahesuan discovers Rumpoey. " Comma needed.
  • "While carrying Rumpoey" Why is he carrying her?
  • "A raindrop drips through a hole in the brim of Mahesuan's hat, distracting him. Dum fires first, blowing Mahesuan's head off." Join these two with a "when" or an "as".
  • I would have made the comma changes myself, but I'm pressed for time at the moment.

Production

  • "It also draws on 1960s and 1970s Thai action cinema, so-called by critics" While what it refers to should be obvious, I tend to use the noun if there is any doubt. "so-called" sounds really awkward. Why not just "called"? Or "know by critics as"?
    • Reworked that.
  • "novels of Thai humorist Por Intharapalit and an old Thai pop ballad" Any appropriate wikilinks would be appreciated here.
  • "Wisit said in an interview." Source?
    • An interview for the production notes. I've tacked the ref on at the end of each quote.
  • I'm puzzled by whether "The Heavens Strike the Thief" should be capitalized and italicized in the lead, and if so should it be the same in Origins? Is it a common title in the English world, which is the way it comes across in the lead? In Origins it sounds like it's just a a translation, in which caseI would say no caps or italics.
    • It's not a standard English title, so I lower-cased it in the intro.
  • "'depending on the film's context,' the director said. Source?
    • Same source as before.
  • "Fah talai jone is also the Thai name for an herb, Andrographis paniculata." This has what to do with the price of tea in China? It's just tacked on and sounds like it was lifted from a trivia section. Put it in context, or if there is nothing beyond coincidence then just say "coincidentally".
    • I know that the director, like many Thais, takes great delight in puns and double meanings. At the cinema, silly puns will result in riotous laughter. It's really amazing. So probably the fact that there's an herb with the same name only heightens the meaning of the title. I reworked it so that this idea is clearer, I hope.
  • "the directorial debut for Wisit" There's a case for using either "for" or "of" here, and they have different connotations. I don't know enough to have an opinion, but you should and I just wanted to alert you to it.
    • By Wisit?
      • That works too.
  • "Production design was by Ek Iemchuen,[10]" Why is this cite in the middle of a sentence? I don't think you will be challenged to prove that Ek did the production design but that he was a classmate. Move the cite to the end.
    • Done.
  • "likay (Thai folk opera)" I'm not a fan of parentheses. I'd say "likay, a form of Thai folk opera."
    • Or a Thai form of folk opera.
  • "Wisit said in a 2001 interview." Is it really important where he said what he said? I don't think that's the case here, so you can drop it and let the cite do the work.
    • Done.
  • "Over-saturated colors were used as part of the overall production design to reflect scenes of rural Thailand, which the director saw as bright and colorful." Consider dropping "as part of the overall production design".
    • Done
  • "Walls on the sets and locations were painted pink or green, and lighting was used to achieve the desired effect, but the film was additionally treated in the color grading process." This is a run-on. Also what was the desired effect? If it's saturation just say so.
    • Done
  • Nice work with the no-break space in 35 mm. :)
    • Thanks. I'm learning.
  • "To experiment with the set design and lighting effects, Wisit was able to try them out in a commercial he directed for Wrangler Jeans, " "To experiment" and "to try them out" is redundant. Simplify.
    • Done.
  • "whom the director said" Everytime the director says something I think it should be cited. I'm not sure if I'm the only one, but it's a good idea nonetheless.
    • Yes.
  • "There are experienced actors in the cast as well, including Sombat Metanee and Naiyana Sheewanun, who worked in the era of Thai filmmaking that Wisit was trying to recreate." Very flat, try rephrasing.
    • Need to work on that some more. Can't think of any other way to say it.
  • For the old-style marketing, what is the name of the book they made?
    • Same as the film.

Reception

  • "in a wide release in Thai cinemas." What about changing the second "in" to a "to"?
    • Sure.
  • "It won best costume design for designer Chaiwichit Somboon at the Thailand National Film Association Awards." Rephrase to avoid saying "design" and "designer".
    • Done.
  • "The Bangkok Critics Assembly" wikilink?
    • Links provided to section of Cinema of Thailand article.
  • "Ek Iemchuen" or "Ek Iamchuen"? (Oh damn, I just realized that's an "I" not a lower-case "L". Don't know how you could avoid that...)
    • IMDb really butchered the guy's name. Just did a correction.
  • I'm totally for accent marks on "premiere", but that's just me.
    • Isn't premiere English? With the accents, it would be the French.
  • Looking at the awards, you might want to reevaluate which ones you mention in the lead. You should mention some of the many Thai ones, or just that it won many Thai awards.
    • The Thai awards weren't that prestigious. If it had won best picture or best director I could see mentioning it up higher. It can be said in the intro, though, that it won many awards in Thailand.
  • "It also had theatrical releases in the United Kingdom, France and Japan." This bothers me because it makes it sound like the film owns these things. I don't know if you understand that, but I'd change it to "It was also theatrically released in ..."
    • Done.
  • "Because of its blending of genres, colorful production design and conspicuous action, it has achieved cult status." Seems like every film I find has a cult now. Can this be proved?
    • I have junked the cult status of the film, even though it probably exists. However, I can't prove it.
  • You're mixing standards again. Either use ' "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet." ' or ' "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet". '.
    • What can I say? I'm an American working for a publication that uses British English. Most days, I don't know whether I'm coming or going.
  • "Edelstein wrote in a review for the film's 2007 US release" Don't know if this clause is necessary. Completely up to you to keep or cut.
    • Cut it.

Distribution

  • "A string of limited releases is set for January-March 2007 with a Region 1 DVD release planned thereafter. It is the original version of the film." Incorporate that last sentence like you did in the lead.
    • Okay.
  • "Miramax changed the ending" Is there any more info on this? What did they change it to? Why change it? Why shelve it? etc.
    • Miramax routinely edited foreign films they purchased. I should be able to reference this. As for why it was shelved, that's more difficult to explain, but I'll try to find a reference.
  • The section heading "Distribution and DVD" could be changed to just "Distribution".
    • Okay.

Soundtrack, miscellanae

  • "I'm so alone, so lonesome I could die" Should there be a period for this last line?
    • I don't know. I try it out.
  • "See also: Music of Thailand" Is this needed?
    • Probably not.
  • Is this on any other language wiki?
    • I'll check. Seems like French Wikipedia should have it, and possibly Thai as well.
  • I'm not sure, but I think categories are supposed to alphabetized.
    • You're right, they are.
  • Where the hell did the interview come from? The link is to just a text dump.
    • It's a Japanese Thai film website. Parts of the interview are used in the Russian mirror of the Film Bangkok site. I believe it to be from the production notes.
  • The linebreaks in the soundtrack section are annoying, but what can you do?
    • That's the standard from WP:ALBUM.
      • I figured as much, but the way the tracks are sometimes split across two lines is bothersome. It's only a minor aesthetics issue though.
  • Nice use of the auto-PR, and this article should pass GA once the plot is fixed.--Supernumerary 04:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thanks, again, for your hard work on this. I promise this will be the last peer review I seek for awhile. I'll try to pitch in with some myself. — WiseKwai 07:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super 14

I havn't worked on this article but I believe that a peer-review is necessary. Please be specific, we should be aiming to get this article to Good Article standard at least. - Shudda talk 23:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My ideas for improvement:
  • The lead section needs to be rewritten, especially the second paragraph. Also, needs to add some information on the history of the competition, especially past winners, possibly some of the major records as well.
  • Should be a section competition format and sponsorship. That would include information on the naming rights as well the competition section.
  • The SANZAR section should be near the top, and should be rewritten. It's in need of some references.
  • The history section needs a lot of work. The origins is good, however the Super 12 section is far to small. The expansion section of the history part should be about the Super 14 and the inclusion of the new teams. The information about the Spears could maybe go in the teams section, also, I think it should be summarised, far to much info there.
  • The teams section could include discussion on who the teams represent. The New Zealand, Australian and South African teams are all organised and structured differently. New Zealand has a franchise system, each team is owned by the NZRU, Australia it's mainly State teams and South Africa I'm not sure.
  • Below the Super 14 could be expanded, especially the impact that the Super 14 has had on those competitions (they've been around since before the Super 12).
  • Media coverage section needs to be expanded. Is there a good reason the video game section even exists?
  • The firsts in the records section should be removed.
  • Remove unnecessary external links.
  • More references are needed, especially inline citations.
Any comments? - Shudda talk 02:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of your points will be great for improving the article. I've got a few ideas:

  • In particular, the competition/format section could do with a big expansion.
  • Future section is kind of dodgy, I say move to players stuff into history, as it won't be 'future' soon.
  • The rest should go into a paragraph to go below the teams table, along with other info (Spears etc.)
  • Merge Snzr into comp/format?
  • Below the Super 14? Maybe change to "Other competitions" and include a little 3N info?
  • No need for Rugby World Cup-like tables for the results section. No flags either imo.
  • Obviously the stats/records section would be better as text as opposed to lists.
  • Video game section should be merged into "Media coverage" and changed to "Media"...add info about first inclusion in a game, format, platform etc.
  • Merge "Other trophies" into "Trophy". Cvene64 13:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick review for the moment:

  • largest rugby union championship in the southern hemisphere - I don't think so... Surely other tournaments have more teams playing... Perhaps the largest in terms of revenue or spectators, but certainly not the largest tournament in the traditional sense. this needs to be clarrified.
  • Try using the term Round-robin tournament to describe the workings of the first round in the lead, it is currently messy.
  • The current competition is the Super 14, this was not inaugurated in 1996, but 2006. Again, this needs to be clarified.
  • Naming rights. Yes, they are different in the three participating countries, why? Also, what is it called outside of these three countries as it is televised to over 41 countries.
  • references required for the logo section.
  • dramatic finish to the 1995 World Cup in South Africa, why was it dramatic? why was it relevant? is dramatic encyclopaedic? Why start that section with that tournament and then go back to 1986? Seems disjointed to me...
  • Paid television is significant in the development of the professional league, but we need proper references here. This need for references should also be applied to the entire article.
  • Perhaps too much detail and space given to the defunct spears. Five paragraphs seems a bit excessive considering almost no details are given to the tournament between 1996 and 2004.
  • We talk about franchises, not clubs or provincial sides, why was this the basis. Did these franchises grow out of provinces? who runs them? who funds them?
  • with 12 sides and three countries, why was there not a 4-4-4 split of these franchises? Why did Australia get just three, SA four and NZ five?
  • other trophies, what are the significance of these trophies? Where did they come from, why are they important? Are they part of the S14? Do they need to be mentioned?
  • Team records could be put in a table
  • Below the Super 14 reword this heading

--Bob 08:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Orb

  • I'd like to hear what others think needs to be done to make it into an FA (its currently a GA). Much copyediting needs to be done still, but what other issues are there? Is there too much information? Are some parts confusing? Is there anything that needs to be explained to those not familiar with electronic music? Those are just a couple concerns I have at this point - all general comments and suggestions are still needed of course. Thanks in advance! Wickethewok 08:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one? Wickethewok 22:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wish I knew what needs addressing, but you're better off giving editors a bell who usually hang around FAC and object for specific reasons. See if they can give you some ideas. LuciferMorgan 03:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great work Wicket, looks and reads really well. A few suggestions, though some may be subjective:

  • "Their early performances were inspired by ambient producers, most notably..." - clarify that these influences were from an earlier period, and the The Orb helped re-popularised the genre.
  • "Trippy sound" could be blue linked to psychedelic.
  • "Albums by The Orb have appeared on the UK Albums Chart" - how many albums?
  • Would be very interested to know what hand Paterson had in the production of Chill Out.
  • Two consecutive sentences begin with "As a result of the break-up".
  • "At least six studios and twenty outside musicians were used over the course of three weeks of recording" - sounds intriguing, why was this? How were they able to afford such production?
  • "many trip-hop groups sprang up emulating The Orb's "chill-out blueprint"" - might be worth name dropping a few.
  • "The Orb's more recent influences consist largely of German techno producers" - such as...
  • "the chemical generation" may need to be clarified.
  • The 'Imagery' section is very good; great idea. + Ceoil 22:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gorillaz

Resubmitting for peer review. Recently I've been adding citations and cutting down the fancruft. I'd appreciate any suggestions on what could be improved or expanded, notes on the interestingness of the writing and also whether the article meets Good Article status. - kollision 07:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The "Fictional band history" section is much too long and should be trimmed drastically. It probably shouldn't need to be longer than 1/2 of its current length. This section also needs to be edited to have a more encyclopedic tone; its currently written a too stylistically and dramatically.
  2. There many very short paragraphs section "Phase Two: Slowboat to Hades (2004 – present)" and in the other sections to a lesser extent. These should be integrated into larger paragraphs and rewritten to allow better flow of the text.
  3. More inline citations are needed, each paragraph should have a few at least
  4. Material such as "This can be seen as the genesis of the musical style that continued into Gorillaz' first album" reads as original research and should be cited or removed
  5. The live performances section should be narrowed down to two or three of their most notable performances. If you can't write more than a decent-sized paragraph on a tour, it doesn't need its own section.
  6. There's a lot of speculation/original research/uncited material on the status of their website at various points in time. These really need citations from reliable sources, or else removed.
  7. Needs much copyediting - I'd save this until after the above issues are fixed, however. I highly suggest reading through the sections on eliminating redundancy and improving sentence flow in User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a and trying the exercises User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a: redundancy exercises. The prose doesn't need to be perfect for a GA, but this will certainly make it easier to get this article to a GA. Best of luck! Wickethewok 09:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon Diamond and Pearl

The aforementioned article is of a game that is not yet released, but I'm looking to see if there are any suggestions that editors can give in order to improve the article. One aim is to get it at Good Article status. In particular, what needs referencing? Should some bits be given a reference to text that's in the game already? (That task would be hard but can be done - I find myself particularly good at reading Japanese.) What needs to be expanded upon?

Thanks. - Tetsuya-san (talk : contribs) 00:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does this line mean? "Every Pokémon is catchable without using Pal Park (except for previous generations’ starter Pokémon, their evolutions, and Legendary Pokémon). However, there are Pokémon can only be caught with a specific GBA Pokémon game in Slot 2 of the DS." --Squilibob 01:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is "The use of Pal Park for players is necessary if the player wishes to transfer starter Pokémon or Legendary Pokémon from a previous generation of Pokémon games. There are also Pokémon that are only available by having a Game Boy Advance Pokémon RPG inserted into the the secondary slot of the Nintendo DS." a better clarification, or is there anything more in that which needs reiteration? Cheers. - Tetsuya-san (talk : contribs) 02:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that explains it properly. --Squilibob 05:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*blinks* Ref 7 is...staggering...can't you just write a message somewhere in the intro instiead of having 15 citations that all say the same thing? Hbdragon88 09:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe something similar was done before, but that cluttered the article. Blue Mirage | Comment 12:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've resorted back to using the {{Future_game}} template and removed the footnoting. Anything else? - Tetsuya-san (talk : contribs) 23:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Callas

This article is about a 20th century opera star and I believe its notability of subject, abundance of references, quality associated pictures recommend it as a good candidate for a featured article. However, weighing against it are its possibly excessive length, its lack in places of consistent encyclopedic tone and neutral point of view (particularly in the introduction), and its irregularity of verifiability in a number of its more challengeable assertions. There has already been extensive discussion on the article's talk page, but little acknowledgement of the article's actual problems, which may prevent it from achieving featured status. I appreciate all input other editors can provide. Robert K S 19:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Flood (Halo)

I've been working on this article, trying to clean it up and get it out-of-universe. In that respect, am I doing ok? Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 19:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Defense of the Ancients

I've been trying to get this article into better shape, quality wise, and clean up the tone. I think a fresh pair of eyes would help to see what isn't explained to someone who doesn't know the gametype, and what gets confusingly obtuse or blatantly non-neutral. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 18:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

London Underground

This has had a lot of cleanup by various editors, with short sections expanded and other things. What will it take for this to acheive FA status again? Simply south 13:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tenacious D discography

What can I do to improve this page?

I think I need more sources possibly, but I am not sure.

Tenacious D Fans 11:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if the covers are covered by fair use. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works), Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD/Discography and Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD/Images. I don't think you need more sources, but I added the References sections that was missing. Also, expand the lead section a bit more. No-Bullet (Talk • Contribs) 07:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The discography section on the Tenacious D article was more detailed and I moved that info to this article. I've replaced it with a simple list with a link to the discography article. No-Bullet (Talk • Contribs) 07:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot. It looks much better. I will consult the automated peer review suggestions. Tenacious D Fans (talk) 13:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Origin of Species

Dave and I have been doing a lot of recent work on this article and I would like some other feedback on how we (or I, if Dave is too busy) can improve it. Thanks. StudyAndBeWise 03:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--- Automated peer review through script ---

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 01Miles, use 01 Miles, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 01&nbsp;Miles.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds -> lb.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.[?]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • correctly
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: defense (A) (British: defence), categorise (B) (American: categorize), ization (A) (British: isation), any more (B) (American: anymore), curb (A) (British: kerb).
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, StudyAndBeWise 05:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--- END Automated peer review through script ---

I just spent some time updating a different article, I found on the request for peer review page, but a review of The Origin of Species would be appreciated. Thanks.

StudyAndBeWise 01:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sunderland

This article is large and full of detailed information, with quality images. Contributed to be mostly experienced users, little vandalism. The article I feel could have room for improvement, and I wish it to be a featured article. So we need to improve it. Rasillon 22:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.[?]
  • As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.[?]
  • Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.[?]
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.[?]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • it has been
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please provide citations for all of the {{fact}}s.
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, SenatorsTalk | Contribs 00:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Van De Kamp

I have been working on and off on this article for a while now, and recently a user has come along and removed vast swathes of what I have written. As I was planning on making this FA eventually, I suppose it might be a good time to peer review Andrew. So, how do I make this article FA? Should I use the current version, or the previous version? Comments would be appreciated. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the automated suggestions, because they aren't in the slightest helpful (and never have been for any article I've ever peer reviewed). Some human input would be appreciated. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trebor

It looks generally good. Thoughts:

  • I would aim for somewhere in-between the two leads, maybe two longer paragraphs than four short ones, since it's a fairly short article
  • Sentence beginning His manipulative tactics is long and snaky separating the main clause with a lot of subclauses
  • I'm not really sure whether the longer or shorter biography should be used; again, I might go for somewhere in-between. I think the cites should be included where possible, though, as there's no advantage to not having them. The problem with this article seems to be trying to keep it mostly out-of-universe (per WP:WAF). Is there anything more you could say about the character or critical development?
  • Are the two sentences starting from From Andrew's hurt cited? If not, it's original research, since you're working out what it implies.
  • Interestingly however - the "however" isn't contradicting anything so is redundant (the "despite" does it for you). Interestingly isn't really necessary either, and is ever-so-slightly POV.
  • However, Shawn - again, no contradiction, no need for it

I'm not sure if any similar articles (minor fictional characters) have become an FA; I'd be interested to see how this one goes down. It is fairly short, and about half of it is in-universe, which may be seen as problems. That said, you can only write with the information available and, presuming this is comprehensive, it seems pretty good. Trebor 12:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to work on your suggestions this weekend. Thank you for the peer review! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fiddle Faddle

I'm reviewing this from a position of looking at the article with no knowledge of the topic.

Overall

A hypercritical proofread for syntax, etc, with the use of commas is needed. An example is Fed up Bree drove him to a gas station whcih shoudl read Fed up, Bree drove him to a gas station

The article seems written with regard to US TV audiences. The homosxuality issue is far less surprising in Europe, and homosexual kisses and embraces, while not the norm, are no longer surprising, certain in the UK. It may be possible to detail that in the article.

For me the style is a little too "narative" and not enough "encyclopaedic formal". I know we are not making this a "TV Review", I just feel a little more formality woudl be of benefit.

I just have a few specific comments below:

Prior to Season 1

This seems to me to be short to the point of being not worth including. Thus it requires expansion. Is it important?

Season 1

I'm not sure a diaresis is useful. If there is a never endling list of things he has done I feel it needs articulating

Season 2

Andrew, realizing he really is about to lose his mom, tells her that the only good thing is that he has won - won what? Fiddle Faddle 14:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This summary was not written by me, so I would be grateful if, like Trebor above, you could compare the current version, and the previous version, which I tried to reference and keep formal. I wasn't sure, as I have never written an article of this type before, which version would be preferable. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am confused. I can really only review the current article, because that is what appears to everyone. Comparing it with the prior version is an interesting academic exercise, but isn't really very usual, is it? Fiddle Faddle 23:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Light dawns. You made that request at the top. Now I see what you were asking for. Still a little confusing, but I'll have a look when I can. Fiddle Faddle 23:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This will get quite complex. I think you need to work forward form the version that is the current version, and incorporate the best bits of the prior version along with the various comments here. Fiddle Faddle 23:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, I must have forgotten to watchlist this, because I didn't see these comments. Thank you for your reviews, and I will try to address your concerns and criticisms this weekend. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted to my version and cut out the more fancrufty bits. To be honest with you, this article now looks like a bit of a car crash in the Biography section. What tense should it be in? How do I make it "out-universe"? Anything else? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Fiddle Faddle after article reversion/rewrite

General

Good call to revert, unless, of course, that gets you into a revert war. I see what you mean about a car crash, but it's not too bad. However I still believe it looks like a review of the episode. I think it shoudl be more about the character. I would divide the bio from the plot. Now that is pretty tough to do since the plot is the bio in so many ways. What I mean is to make it more formal and less journalistic review.

references

My only real beef is the references. Have a look at Category:Citation templates especially at templates looking like Template:Cite web and others for episodes etc. Look also at the <ref>text</ref> structure and see how to re-use the same reference in multiple places. You do this with the syntax of <ref name="yourchosenname">Text which ideally includes the cite template that is relevant</ref> and then to re-use you insert <ref name="yourchosenname" /> (note the "/" character) where you re-use it. Obviously you use a different name each time. This will tidy the references section.

I don't use the muliple cites because the times provided in each reference are different. I felt the times were equivalent to page numbers. Should I remove them? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now I read more closely that makes sense. I suggest you both leave them and add the "cite" template that is relevant for your needs. That way they leave a better impression. here you can also include quotations, for example. Fiddle Faddle 13:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I see more "stuff" I'll note it here for you. Fiddle Faddle 09:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Siemgi

I'm finally making my review to explain my stance a bit more

My ideas

While I respect all the work you have made (especially since quite a few of my articles have been harshly critised), I think that a profile must remain a profile and not become an exhaustive list of the character's actions. You go too far giving details that are not that important. I also do believe that you don't have to cite every moment of the show with notes as there is no doubt it's accurate. I think people come here to have an overview on the character not an extensive diary. I hope you won't take any offense from what I am writing as this is not my point. Secondly, I think the gay part is way to emphasized. Andrew is gay but not just gay if you see what I mean. And the introduction is a bit too long and redundant when you read the entire article, most of it belongs, at least I think so, to the character and criticism sections (which are great by the way). Actually your profile would be great on a fan site but maybe not on an encyclopedia. Look at all the bios on the other characters. they are way shorter still you get a could understanding of who the characters are. I'm open to any commentary on my review.

I am aware that my coverage of Andrew is too detailed, and I have started making moves to cut that down. Andrew is obviously a complex chracter (and don't I love him for it), but his sexuality has been his main storyline in Season 3, and the underlying cause of his behaviour in Season 2. I consider the biography section to need a great deal of work in terms of tone and tenses, and your criticisms of it are extremely valid. However, I would not compare this biography with that of other DH characters, as they are all written in a fancrufty in-universe type manner. I am trying to avoid and correct that. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would also add that while there perhaps is not a great need to cite his fictional actions with the appropriate episode, I consider it a useful thing to do and can't see the benefit in not including them. It just makes it slightly easier for someone to see where something happened (or, for that matter, someone to check the information is correct). Trebor 22:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Saying the episode's title is fine. Saying on 13'40' ' is a bit too much. one source for everything that belongs to the episode would be enough. And maybe sum up the quotations so that it still shows the idea but doesn't look like a serie of quotes. Hope that helps Siemgi

History of Milton Keynes

I would like help to make this FA in at least on portal:United Kingdom for 23 January 2007, the 40th anniversary of the foundation of the modern Milton Keynes in 1967. Help and advice welcome - might make Wikipedia FA in 2017!

The web citations all need to be changed to the long form style, which I am working on. --Concrete Cowboy 22:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All citations done. --Concrete Cowboy 17:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, SenatorsTalk | Contribs 00:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very useful - I've not seen these principles before so I will work through them. --Concrete Cowboy 18:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for these suggestions which have improved the article. --Concrete Cowboy 23:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raven banner

Relatively new article, recent GA. Would like to get it up to FA status. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, SenatorsTalk | Contribs 00:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Sheppard

As an antidote to our fine article on the self-proclaimed "Thief-Taker General" and all-round bad egg, Jonathan Wild, here is another 18th-century thief, but a working-class hero this time. This is largely based on Lucy Moore's 2000 The Thieves' Opera. Suggestions for additional content or other sources are very welcome. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Kindi

Hello everyone,

The importance of al-Kindi as a figure in the historical development of Islamic thought cannot be understated. His works on philosophy and science would have far reaching consequences, not just for the Muslim world, but for Europe as well. To that end, alot of work has been put into the article in bringing it up to GA status, with the aim of taking it to FA.

We would welcome any comments you have on the article, but the area that will need most attention will be the clarity of expression (especially of philosophical ideas) which is crucial.

Thankyou in advance for your help,

Alexander.Hainy 00:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • References go after punctuation with no space, ex .[10] i saw it like this [10]. and . [10]
  • Your web sources are not formatted properly, please check {{cite web}}
  • For the "quotation" section there is a wiki for quotes where it should be moved
  • Alphabetize categories
  • There are a few one sentence 'paragraphs' remove merge or expand
  • After these problems are dealt with it will only be the text that needs work, i haven't read it though just thought i would help you with the obvious problems. M3tal H3ad 07:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents:

  • "as well a talented musician." Do you mean as well as a talented musician?
    • I have some seious problems with your lead. the attempted "as well as a talented" is verbose. Just say "and."
    • "He was the first of the Muslim peripatetic philosophers, and is best known for his efforts to introduce philosophy to the Muslim world." This line is getting close to fancruft, in the aspect that it is too large of an acredidation to be without a citation, so get one for this line.
  • You have a lot of dangling modifiers. "A descendant of the Kinda tribe, al-Kindi..." One should use a participial phrase here and change it to: "Descendant of the Kinda tribe of pre-Islamic Arab world."
    • I aded the "pre-Islamic Arab world" part because I assume that maybe only one reader out of ten will recognize his location without my addition. Although you don't really need to "dumb down" an article, you need to diversify its possible readership.
  • " ...al-Kindi was born and educated in Kufa before travelling to Baghdad to pursue further studies." It's nearly a run-on. Break it into "......al-Kindi was born and educated in Kufa. He travelled to Baghdad to pursue further studies."
  • This is a run-on, "There, he would become a principal figure in the House of Wisdom, where he was patronized by a number of Abbasid Caliphs to oversee the task of translating Greek scientific and philosophical texts into the Arabic language."
    • Say this: "Al-Kindi became an important member of the House of Wisdom, where fellow Abbasid Caliphs successfully coerced him to translate important Greek philosophical and scientific text into Arabic.
  • This is...not a run-on, but it does need a verification: "His contact with "the philosophy of the ancients" would have a profound effect on his intellectual development and lead him to write a number of original treatises of his own on a range of subjects ranging from metaphysics and ethics to mathematics and pharmacology."
  • In the lead, you are a bit low on citations, namely, you have none. Get some.
  • I think your lead may concentrate too heavily on the "Life" section.
Drop a line when you're ready for more. I've been really busy this month, so don't expect any quick replies. Permission to respond ex post facto to this, meaning after the PR? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Esoltas (talk • contribs).

Anas Salloum

Great job! Nice work on the article. With some effort, I think it has a good chance of becoming a good or even a featured article.

  • The lead could use some citations. Most importantly to phrases like: "He was the first of the Muslim peripatetic philosophers.." etc.
  • Names have been spelled differently throughout the article. For example, al-Farabi is spelled al-Fārābi in other paragraphs; also al-Mu'tasim (Mutasim). You need to fix these.
  • "The historian Ibn al-Nadim(d. 955), described him.." I think it is not neccessary to include the date of his death, or just separate them with a space.
  • The article has to use a unanimous spelling of the subject's name. In parts you write al-Kindi, and in others you write Al-Kindī and al-Kindī. In this case, they should be all changed to al-Kindi (or Al-Kindi if in the beginning of a sentence, of course).
  • Make sure the wiki-links refer readers to the direct and correct article page (not redirect or disambiguation pages).
  • In the lead, you need to briefly describe and talk about his major accomplishments.
  • Use the en-dash (&ndash;) for dates and numeric ranges.
  • Get rid of the red links; either create stubs or remove them if they are not notable enough for articles. Not a prerequisite for achieving good or featured article status, though.
  • The quotation section is unnecessary and usually not favored.
  • "only 5 have survived.." Spell out numbers less than ten.

If not busy, I'll be reading the article later today and returning with more suggestions if I find any. Good luck! ← ANAS Talk? 12:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carabinieri

  • The word "unfortunately" should not be used (WP:NPOV)
  • Not sure about this one, but shouldn't it be "the Kinda tribe in Kufa, which had migrated there from Yemen" (I don't believe "tribe" is considered "human")
  • "On account of his learning and aptitude for study, al-Ma'mun appointed him to House of Wisdom, which was a recently established centre for the translation of Greek philosophical and scientific texts in Baghdad." It would sound more fluent if the relative clause was changed to an apposition, i.e.: "On account of his learning and aptitude for study, al-Ma'mun appointed him to House of Wisdom, a recently established centre for the translation of Greek philosophical and scientific texts in Baghdad."
  • Chemistry and medicine: It would be nice to know, whether his work in this field has been refuted by modern science.
  • The words "we" and "our" should not be used (WP:MOS#Avoid_first-person_pronouns_and_one)
  • I know that may not be possible, but it would be cool, if there were a few more images, even if they do not simply depict al-Kindi - simply related images would be better than none. But I do realize that may not be possible with philosophical topics.
  • "However, as Oliver Leaman, an expert on Islamic philosophy, points out, their objections are rarely directed at philosophy itself (even al-Ghazali himself used the instruments of Greek logic to argue with the philosophers) but rather the conclusions the philosophers arrived at." It would be nice to know what these conclusions were - or at least one or two examples.
  • How al-Kindi was received by the following generations is only mentioned once, in the Life section. Were his works ever received after his death or were they only forgotten about after a few generations?

Other than that, the article looks great. Good work!--Carabinieri 19:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could also add a "selected works" section listing the most "important" (whatever that means) books of his with a link to a sub-page listing all books whose titles are known. That might be a good idea, but it's just a suggestion.--Carabinieri 20:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


List of Stratocaster players

O.K, I have compleatly renovated this list, and I still provide it loving care :). I do know that there should be a citation for every entry, but once that is done (I will work on finding some books) then I want to know if this has a shot for WP:FL. So besides the citations what should be done. Another thing to note that the list is created similar to the style of List of Telecaster players which is also a featured article. Also every section has a non-fair use image of a Strat player. Thanks and review is greatly appreciated. Arjun 19:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks very good to me, a good list (well modelled on the Telecaster one) with some nice free use images. Aside from the citations, I can't see anything else to do. Good job. Trebor 23:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, great work, but some editors might criticize the lead section, so you maybe want to expand it a little. In the next days I'll try to help with sources. Cheers. No-Bullet (Talk • Contribs) 23:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some thoughts:
  • No need for the subsections; the list isn't that long after all, and the divisions are rather arbitrary.
  • What does "who have made notable use" mean? Same thing with the last sentence of the lead (The musicians listed here...). This gets really tough to judge. Why not just go with WP:V and say that anyone who has used the guitar and has been documented in a reliable source gets added? Presumably, the majority of such people will have articles (since they are being mentioned in a reliable source), so there shouldn't be a problem there.
  • Once you cut out the fluff (all the stuff in my previous point that shouldn't even be mentioned), there's not much of a lead. Why is this list worth looking at? What makes the Fender Stratocaster so important?
Hope this helps. --Spangineerws (háblame) 05:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thanks, the reason why it looks so small right now is because we have just taken out all the guitarists without citations. Arjun 14:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chrysiridia rhipheus

I've been working on this article a lot, and would like to know how to improve it more. Pro bug catcher 03:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's well-referenced and provides all the main details, but very short. Is there anything more that can be written about this moth (I know very little about the topic)? If not, then there doesn't seem much point in splitting it into multiple sections: there's only 3-4 paragraphs of information there, and stubby sections and paragraphs don't read well. Trebor 16:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen in two sources that it can be a migrating moth, but haven't understood completely (not enough to put it in Wikipedia), when I do understant I'll add it to the Range or Habits section. The paragraphs (even though stubby) were made to use the Lepidoptera Wikiproject Aticle formats. And by the way thanks for the review. What grade do you think it should be (Start, B, Good, A, FA... I can always dream)?Pro bug catcher 16:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, to be honest, I have no idea what grade it should be. I was never very good at this kind of thing. Could you ask someone on the Wikiproject to assess it? Trebor 19:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll try that. Thanks again.Pro bug catcher 02:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Devil May Cry 2

Recently, I've done a lot of work on the Devil May Cry 2 page, and I'm currently trying to get it to Featured Article status. Right now the Gameplay section does require a bit of sourcing (something I'm in the process of working on), but overall I'm fairly proud of the work I've done. It'd help if I could get a few eyes on the article to help me identify the problems I'm blind to because I've been working it so long.

To summarize my changes:

  • Added a lot of sourcing
  • Added a section on the Diesel clothing cross-promotion
  • Added a Gameplay section
  • Added a Plot Summary section
  • Cleaned up the Reaction section

Thanks in advance.

Cheers, Lankybugger 03:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
  • As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.[?]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • is considered
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • Avoid using contractions like: doesn't, Don't, Don't.
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, JACOPLANE • 2007-01-11 15:04 15:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good start, but a fair amount of work is still required. It needs a thorough copyedit: the 4 paragraphs in the lead could easily be condensed to 2. The majority of the article isn't wikilinked. The Gameplay subsection is largely unreferenced, while the Plot subsection had too many notes (it isn't necessary to include so much of the dialogue). Reaction subsection is mostly good, although the cites could do with formatting (go to Template:Cite and choose the correct one for the source in question). It also seems to be written too much in-universe (see WP:WAF), try to find sources that have commented on the gameplay of it. A section on Development would be good too. Look at articles like Final Fantasy X or Shadow of the Colossus for ideas. Trebor 16:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan

I would like to move this article a step closer to FA status. It received encouraging feedback when it went through a WikiProject Biography peer review which is now archived. I am hoping that the general peer review process will generate additional interest and feedback from a broader audience. I would also like to see the article's rating upgraded. Cimm[talk] 00:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, SenatorsTalk | Contribs 00:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gzkn's review

I copy-edited some stuff as I went along. As requested, here are my comments:

  • He was noted for reorienting the agency's focus beyond Europe and preparing it for the explosion of complex refugee issues that followed during the next decades. "During the next decades" is unclear, as we're giving no information beforehand when he was appointed United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
    Done. I removed "during the next decades" per your suggestion. Cimm[talk] 01:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • After three years of post-graduate research at the Harvard Center for Middle Eastern Studies, Prince Sadruddin followed a family tradition in international service established by his father who had served two terms as President of the League of Nations This sentence is somewhat awkward. I tried to correct it while copy-editing, but gave up. Perhaps you can recast it somehow?
    I wrestled with previous incarnations of this sentence, and simplified it to what it is. I looked at it again, changed in to of international service and added a comma. I do not find the sentence awkward, but maybe I've grown too familiar with it. Cimm[talk] 01:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • He recalled that the Aga Khan... "recalled that his father" might be better there.
    Done. Cimm[talk] 01:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...with the aim of bringing original creative work to the fore. That's a pretty generic goal...some more specificity would be helpful to those unfamiliar with the Paris Review.
    It is what it is - I couldn't find much else in the source material about his involvement. Personally, I think anything more specific about the magazine belongs in the Paris Review article. Cimm[talk] 01:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1958, Prince Sadruddin joined UNESCO, and... repetitive from previous paragraph. Instead, try "After joining UNESCO, he became...in 1961."
    Done. Good suggestion. Cimm[talk] 01:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This initiative brought together archaeologists from Eastern Europe and the West at the height of the Cold War to save the treasures of ancient Egypt which were threatened by the construction of the Aswan Dam, including Abu Simbel, the temples of Philae and Kalabsha and the Christian churches of Nubia. Kind of long and winding. Consider breaking it up into two.
    Done. Another great suggestion. Cimm[talk] 01:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Initially, Bellerive worked with UNICEF and the United Nations Children's Fund... Kind of ambiguous...when did he start working with UNICEF?
    He didn't work with Unicef directly; only through the Bellerive foundation. I don't see the ambiguity here... Cimm[talk] 01:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well done! Gzkn 01:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gzkn - Thank you for your copyediting and your comments! I will consider all of your suggestions and make appropriate updates. I appreciate your time and thoughts. Cimm[talk] 23:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yomangani's review

I mostly find I'd be repeating Gzkn's comments, but additionally:

  • When he was a child, his paternal grandmother used to recite to him the great epic poems of Persian history. needs a reference.
    Done. Cimm[talk] 23:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some items could be linked even though they will be redlinks (Harvard Center for Middle Eastern Studies for example). There will be people at FAC who think redlinks are evil, but they aren't, and you could always fill them before you put it forward as an FA.
    Hmm... I'll think about it. Cimm[talk] 23:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every year the Review awards the Aga Khan Prize for Fiction for the best short story that it published in the past year - would be nice to know if this is in his honour, or his father's or just sponsored by him.
    Good question - I'll see what I can find. Cimm[talk] 23:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. The prize was founded by his father. Good catch. I have noted it in the article. Cimm[talk] 23:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...for the emerging transformation in the landscape of internationally displaced persons - this sounds a bit like a marketing presentation.
    I agree - I've simplified the wording. Cimm[talk] 00:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • When he was nominated again in 1991, the United States and Britain disagreed with his belief in a policy of boosting aid to Iraq. - so what did they do?
    Being the United States and Britain, I expect they simply needed to express their disaproval - indicating they would use their veto power if necessary. I'll see if I can find out specifically, but the bottom line is that without their backing Prince Sadruddin could not become SG. Cimm[talk] 23:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • During its years of operation, Alp Action successfully launched over 140 projects in seven countries. - has it stopped operation? If so, when and why?
    It operated under the Bellerive Foundation, which was folded into the Aga Khan Foundation following the Prince's death. I will look for details on whether the program still exists, but I doubt it. Cimm[talk] 23:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It does not appear to exist anymore. I have added a paragraph about Bellerive's merger into the Aga Khan Foundation, which should address your point. Cimm[talk] 00:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Family and marriage" section is a little stilted.
    Yes, I haven't been able to find a way to soften it up. Will keep trying. Cimm[talk] 23:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And yes, well done! Yomanganitalk 02:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yomangani, I appreciate your feedback and editing! I'll review your comments shortly and incorporate your suggestions into the article. Thank you also for your kind encouragement! Cimm[talk] 23:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SG review

Sorry for the delay - have been busy. Since some excellent copyeditors have already reviewed, I won't look at the prose - just structure - everything looks good, but can you expand the lead, per WP:LEAD? Maybe one more paragraph, if doable?

I will try to expand the lead as suggested. Cimm[talk] 23:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded the lead per your suggestion. I would welcome more comments. Cimm[talk] 02:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something is weird here - the date of the press release is *after* the date at the top when it says it was last updated ??? Secrétariat de Son Altesse l'Aga Khan, Aiglemont (May 13, 2003). Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan. Press release. Retrieved on 2006-12-13.
    Yes. That site is a good source of information, but unfortunately, they are very casual about updating the last updated date. However, I have seen official paper copies of the press releases, so these are valid. Cimm[talk] 23:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article authors left off here:
  • I didn't check more - check others refs for full bibliographic info.
    Thank you for pointing this out. I went through all the sources and added author / editor information where I could find it. Cimm[talk] 23:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found one piece of wayward punctuation, so give it one more eagle eye - looks good, but I didn't look at the prose.
Thanks Sandy - I appreciate your review and comments. Cimm[talk] 23:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Jeffpw

My apologies if some of my comments are redundant. I haven't read any other reviews, so as not to be influenced in my comments.

  • References are not required in the lead. You can reference that material in the body of the article. Additionally, perhaps you want to add the years he was High Commissioner to the lead para.
    I wasn't sure about this but decided to go with references because WP:LEAD states that the lead "should be carefully sourced as appropriate." But other articles don't seem to have references in their lead... I'm on the fence here. Cimm[talk] 20:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I got off the fence and decided you were right. I have dropped all refs from the lead. Cimm[talk] 20:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could do with more wikilinking. Some terms, like Philatelic, the average reader may not understand, particularly if English is not their first language. Also, some countries are linked, but not others. Canton of Geneva is linkable, too, as is Muhammad and Ruud Lubbers. Go through and link as much as possible.
    Thanks for pointing these out. I have wikified them, but will comb through the article to look for more. Cimm[talk] 20:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images: See if you can add more images to the article. I realize that's a toughie, but as the article now stands, it is only text, after the initial image in the infobox. That will become an issue if you nominate it for FA.
    I spent a lot of time looking for the one image that I got, and then even more time trying to ensure that it is legal in Wikipedia. Unless someone who owns the rights to a good photo uploads and releases it for use, I think this is the best that I will get. Other photos do exist, but even if I find a good quality one, how would I be able to justify its use? Any tips here would be appreciated. Cimm[talk] 20:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prince Sadruddin was nominated and passed over twice--passed over is an idiomatic phrase; may I suggest unsuccessfully nominated?
    I considered that phrase as well, but in fact he was nominated successfully, and in fact he actually won the vote the first time. However, he was vetoed from the position. Although it is idiomatic, I think this phrase remains the best fit here. Cimm[talk] 20:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may wish to expand on the family and marriage section. I would also consider moving it up nearer the top. It jarred me a bit that we "went back in time" when you began to discuss the marriage. I prefer a linear approach (that's just me).
    The organization of sections in this article is a bit jarring. Another reviewer has made suggestions about this which I am considering implementing. Cimm[talk] 20:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I don't see this as an issue, some others might: You have some French names in the titles of U.N. functions. Could they be translated to English? I mention this because I have come across objections to use of foreign terms on English Wikipedia in the recent past. As I said, I don't see it as a problem, myself.
    The French terms used in this case are the official names of those positions and are commonly used in their French appelations even in an English context. An English translation would bear no connection to the actual position in anybody's mind. The use of French terms is common in the domain of international diplomacy, and draws from the long and historic traditions of France and Switzerland. Cimm[talk] 20:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, I think this is an excellent article. Are you going to do the same for his brother and father? I checked their articles out, and they could use the same attention you gave this one. And one last suggestion: before you submit this for FA (this should be at least considered for FA status), ask SandyGeorgia to have a look at it. She is a very critical FA reviewer who invariably offers helpful suggestions. She also has an eye for detail that I envy. For my money, she is one of the best reviewers on Wikipedia. Jeffpw 10:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jeff. Sandy was kind enough to review this article and provide her comments a few days ago. I really appreciate all of the feedback that I have received and I can already see improvements in this article since the start of the review process. I appreciate your encouragement - if I can raise this article to FA status, then I will give serious consideration to working on similar articles about other members of Prince Sadruddin's family. Cimm[talk] 20:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anas's review

Nice job researching this article. Here are my two cents:

  • Shouldn't the article's name not include titles? The article names of all Saudi princes do not include their titles, like Prince Al-Waleed. Please see this. If you will move the page, you will have to preserve the history. That might take some work.
    The name of this article and how best to refer to the subject were debated earlier in the editing process and in a prior review. The sources widely refer to him as Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan or simply Prince Sadruddin. Since he was widely recognized by this moniker, I think it is the best name for the article. Also, it is increasingly common for Wikipedia biographical articles to incorporate the titles of their subject. Cimm[talk] 21:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Arabic or, more precisely, the Persian script should be added. I added it along with the Persian transliteration per WP:AMOS.
    Thank you very much - I was hoping that someone might do this! Cimm[talk] 21:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the infobox, in the spouses field, you don't need to number them.
    Another editor did this, and while I initially did not like it, I now think the numbering is a good way to indicate the order of marriages. Cimm[talk] 21:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally , I find it a bit tacky. Oh, I forgot one thing, you should add the years he was married to each wife (1957 – 1962 for the first). In my opinion, separating them with a break and adding the years should make the numbers seem useless. ← ANAS Talk? 12:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. The years were a great solution Cimm[talk] 15:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can add the corresponding flags in the place and date of birth. For example {{Flagicon|US}} produces United States
    I have seen that elsewhere, and personally I find it a bit tacky. So I would prefer not to unless there is a compelling push for the little flags. Cimm[talk] 21:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some notable people that need wikilinking. If they have no articles, just create stubs for them.
    I have just wikified some of the people that I had previously missed. I can't find any other notables who were missed; if you still notice some, please do point them out. Cimm[talk] 21:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he was the only child of His Highness Sir Sultan Muhammad Shah Aga Khan III" - Is the "His Highness" necessary? It doesn't sound encyclopedic to me.
    You are right, I have dropped His Highness. Cimm[talk] 21:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me suggest another section layout for the article. The current one isn't really good. In the first part of this article, after the lead, talk about his life, his biography. So start a 'Biography section, then.. this will make it simpler:
    • Biography
      Childhood and education
      UNESCO (Merge the information in the "Career" intro paragraph into their suitable sections)
      UN High Commissioner for Refugees
      United Nations diplomatic career
      Environmental protection and advocacy
      Death and remembrance (Art collection interrupts the biography. Remembrance is misspelled in the article, BTW)
    • Personal life (more suitable)
      Art collection
      Family and marriages
    • Awards and decorations
    • References
    • External links
    This is a great idea! I am going to reorganize the article per your suggestion a little later on. Cimm[talk] 21:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have just spent several hours implementing the reorganization. It started with your plan but I tried several variations, and also incorporated some additional information into the art collection section. Per your next suggestion, I fropped Family from Family and marriages, and reworked the info to provide more context. Cimm[talk] 05:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know if you have completed implementing the suggestion or not, but I'd like to point out two things. I think that Biography is a better and more accurate title for the section. Early Life and Career (only first word is capitalized BTW) seems sort of inaccurate to me. Also, I believe the Death section should precede the less important sections on his awards and personal life. It is also a core part of his biography and is interrupted by the awards and the personal life section. ← ANAS Talk? 12:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, so I re-read the article and decided to reorganize as you suggested. I went with Life and career though; I think Biography feels too general - the whole article is a biography. Also fixed the caps Cimm[talk] 15:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Family and marriages" section has something wrong in it. Perhaps the part on his family is a little unnecessary? You can, perhaps, mention that his father's family traces back to the Prophet Muhammad..., in the Childhood section, delete the remaining and change this into a "Marriages" section.
    It is clear that his family is an important part of who he was and what he achieved during his lifetime. His lineage, as well as the positions and roles held by his father, his half-brother, and his nephew in paricular, are all very relevant, and would have been even more significant during the decades of his youth. They were all notable individuals who had (or continue to have) important roles on the international stage. I wish their articles were better written and researched to reflect this. I am still looking for good material to beef up the family section. Cimm[talk] 21:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I moved the family info into Personal life and added some colour and context. Hopefully the new section reflects some measure of why his family was important in his life. Cimm[talk] 05:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I like what you've done there. ← ANAS Talk? 12:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images. It would be great if you can find just one or two more images. Though I think it would be almost impossible to find free images. The one you're using in the infobox isn't free and that can be a major problem when nominating it for FA.
    Images have been quite the headache. There aren't too many good ones out there, and then finding a way to meet the licensing requirements is very difficult. Unless someone donates a good photo over which they have rights into the public domain, I'm afraid that we may not have much flexibility here. I'm looking into the possibility of including images of his art collection and home... if I can figure out a valid licensing argument. Cimm[talk] 21:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the not-so-extensive review. Four of the best reviewers have already reviewed this article, so that, and me having my midterms will be my excuse. Drop a message when and if you need anything. Good luck! ← ANAS Talk? 12:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Anas, for spending the time to read and review this article. Your comments were very useful, in particular your suggestion about how to reorganize the article. I am going to work on that next! Cimm[talk] 21:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carabinieri

  • First sentence of the article should say what he was notable for not who his parents were. Switching the contents of the first and second paragraphs might be the best idea.
    This is a great idea and I having now implemented it, I think the lead reads much better! Cimm[talk] 20:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His career as an international diplomat included a 12 year term as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees" should probably mention when that term was
    Done. Cimm[talk] 20:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article seems kind of dry in some parts. If you could add information on what motivated Sadruddin and his opinions on the topics related to his work, that might make it more lively.
    I will consider this and look through the source material to see what I can find that would further embelish this article. Cimm[talk] 20:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that, it looks good though.--Carabinieri 16:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback Carabinieri, particularly the point about reorganizing the lead. It has made a huge difference to the article! Cimm[talk] 20:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trebor

A lot's been said above, but I'll add my thoughts.

  • The lead's second and third paragraphs don't need to be separated - they are commenting on the same sort of thing and this prevents the paragraphs being stubby.
    Agreed and done. Cimm[talk] 23:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no need to describe his parents as "late".
    Done. Cimm[talk] 23:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a personal opinion, feel free to disagree, but I think the lead devotes too many sentences on his personal life and growing up. For instance, his growing up in France and Switzerland and going to Harvard gets only three sentences in the main text, yet a whole sentence in the lead. Perhaps a greater expansion on his notable deeds would be better.
    I have shortened the lead per your suggestion. Cimm[talk] 23:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Together, he and his father traveled widely - I think that they travelled "together" is implied, so it's a bit redundant.
    I agree, and have re-worded it. Cimm[talk] 23:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the next twelve years, he directed the UN - a bit snaky with parenthetical commas within list-based ones. I'm not certain of the best way to tidy it up.
    Good call. I dropped a couple of the extra commas - I think that took care of it. Cimm[talk] 23:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • been variously: - I'm not certain a colon should be used that way, it could carry straight on. Also, the "variously" seems a bit redundant.
    Given the long list of position titles that follows, I think the colon helps. I also considered dropping the variously but decided to keep it in the end. Cimm[talk] 23:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • During his lifetime Prince Sadruddin assembled - "during his lifetime" is redundant, when else would he have done it?
    The during his lifetime indicates that he collected throughout most of the span of his life, as opposed to only collecting for a short phase of his life. I prefer to keep it. Cimm[talk] 23:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You could try "throughout his lifetime"? (But I'm not too bothered; leave it if you want.) Trebor 23:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of these are major complaints, and some are purely a matter of personal preference. A very good article in general. Trebor 16:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate your feedback Trebor; I will review your comments soon and make appropriate adjustments. Cimm[talk] 02:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trebor, your comments were very useful. I'm glad I decided to wait a few days before acting on them - it allowed me to re-read the article with fresh eyes. Cimm[talk] 23:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, hope they helped. Trebor 23:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fahd of Saudi Arabia

In Wikipedia's list of long pages, this is tops among articles written about people, living or dead (at 220 KBs). This is almost close to FA level (I can feel it), but what needs to be taken care of before we take such a chance? --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 23:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffpw

Sorry to disappoint you, but this article is nowhere near FA status. There's not one single reference in this article, so it fails WP:V right off the bat. You (or somebody) will be busy for months citing every fact in an article of this length. There's also only one small picture at the bottom of this loooooong article. It needs a thorough copy editing, too. Additionally, the article (the parts I read, anyway) reads like a promotional piece for the Kingdom. Whole swaths could be deleted from the article, since they are more about the Kingdom than the King. I don't mean to be discouraging, but you asked for opinions. Jeffpw 23:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  • If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 67 tons, use 67 tons, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 67&nbsp;tons.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.[?] Specifically, an example is 60 km.
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
  • As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), avoid using special characters (ex: &+{}[]) in headings.
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.[?]
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
  • This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • it has been
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honor (A) (British: honour), behavior (A) (British: behaviour), harbor (A) (British: harbour), neighbor (A) (British: neighbour), favorite (A) (British: favourite), meter (A) (British: metre), defense (A) (British: defence), organize (A) (British: organise), recognize (A) (British: recognise), realize (A) (British: realise), criticize (A) (British: criticise), ization (A) (British: isation), analyse (B) (American: analyze), paralyze (A) (British: paralyse), travelled (B) (American: traveled), fulfillment (A) (British: fulfilment), program (A) (British: programme), sulfur (A) (British: sulphur).
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”

Avoid misplaced formality: “in order to/for” (-> to/for), “thereupon”, “notwithstanding”, etc.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, SenatorsTalk | Contribs 00:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou

An article needing work. Probably a new review will be needed after the suggestions of this one are implemented. These are some initial remarks:

  • The article has no References and inline citations. Please add sources and citations, and read carefully WP:CITE and WP:FOOTNOTES.
  • Do we know the exact place of Fahd's birth?
  • Try to avoid one-sentence paragraphs. They are bad both for the layout and the prose flow.
  • While at the Princes' School Fahd studied under tutors including Sheikh Abdul-Ghani Khayat. Who is this tutor, and why is he so important to be the only of his tutors to be mentioned here? And if he is so important, why don't you un-redlink him and create a stub for him?
  • "Indeed, it is claimed that he once lost more than $6m in one night at the Monte Carlo casino. "[1] Summoned back to Saudi Arabia" Avoid external jumps like this one. Make proper inline citations, and use, where appropriate, Template:cite news and Template:cite web.
  • "Numerous sources reported on Fahd's famously liberal youth ... ". What sources? Cite, otherwise this is weasel words.
  • "King Fahd was generally considered a moderate and tolerant leader of an otherwise traditional and conservative nation, as was evident in his continued acceptance of a large foreign labour force in the kingdom and close ties to the west which became visible in the Persian Gulf War and liberation of Kuwait." Huh? What has this to do with his youth? Irrelevant uncited assessment placed in a wrong section.
  • "Marbella" is also put in the middle of nowhere! Put your material in order, and avoid stubby sections like this one. Merge or expand (after you put in order!).
  • "Early political positions" is also badly written. Stubby itself with insufficient information and stubby sentence.
  • And in the middle of the narration of his political ascent, career and reign, we get this: "Family and progeny". Badly placed section once again! Put it after the narration of his political career under the title "Family and personal life" (or something similar) or place it in the begining of the article in "Early years", which could be renamed as "Early years and family". Or keep it as "Family" but not where it is now. The article desperately needs a better structure. Read also WP:LAYOUT, especially the "Structure" section.
  • "King Fahd's foreign policies included support on for the War on Terrorism which he described would crush the terrorists "with an iron fist". He has been a supporter of the United Nations. He supports foreign aid and has given 5.5% of Saudia Arabia's national income through various funds especially the Saudi Fund for Development and the OPEC Fund for International Development." Choppy prose. I also thing you could find more things about Fahd's foreign policy, and, subsequently, offer to the reader a more comprehensive analysis.
  • "The Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979". Per WP:MoS we should not wikiling sole years; only full dates (January 3, 1979).
  • Again in the "Foreign policy" section there is a huge project with the structure. You treat first the "War on terrorism" and then the events of 1979 and forward.
  • "King Fahd helped finance the Contras in Nicaragua.[citation needed]" [citation needed] should be fixed with the adequate inline citations. In any case, this sentence is another example of choppy and clumsy prose, missing analysis, verification and correct placing.
  • "Reform and industrialization": Where is the content of this sub-section?!
  • "He was buried in the last thobe (traditional Arab robe) he wore." Don't start a new section with "he". "King Fahd ... "
  • "Funeral" does not flow well. It gets listy.
  • I don't know if all these links in "See also" section are necessary. In any case, the tendency in Wikipedia is to try to get rid of these sections, and link these articles, if they are so important, within the main prose.
  • "Late Saudi King Fahd Modernized Kingdom is a dead link". If it is a dead link, why do you have it there?--Yannismarou 13:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apples and oranges

Any advice for this article? -- Zanimum 15:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't read the article, but these are some suggestions:
  • Use the template:This as a hatnote.
  • the word "idiom" is used a lot of times in the first sections, replace it sometimes with other words.
  • Use the template:cite web instead of those external links.
I'll read the article on the next days and then I'll give you other suggestions. Cheers. No-Bullet (Talk • Contribs) 02:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question, before I get down to brass tacks... how is template:This relevant? The article isn't protected, and doesn't use any templates. -- Zanimum 14:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Template:This isn't about protection, it's the template itself that is protected. It's for other uses of the word; in this case, Template:For was more applicable and I've added it to the article. Trebor 18:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generally seems pretty good, a few thoughts:

  • The lead could be 1 paragraph, there's no point in putting one extra sentence on its own
  • There's no need for a "see below" - it's assumed anything mentioned in the lead will be gone into later on.
  • Repeating the above comments - "it" will be fine instead of "the idiom" each time, and use Template:Cite to find the appropriate referencing template
  • Is there any known history to the idiom? First recorded usage, usage in literature, stuff like that?
  • There are a lot of stubby 1-2 sentence paragraphs, which breaks up the flow a bit

Trebor 18:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consider finding/creating/requesting a picture of an apple and orange next to each other. That may be more effective than separate pictures. —ShadowHalo 04:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme ironing

Any advice for this article? -- Zanimum 15:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few things come to mind after a read:

  • The image copyright status needs to be sorted out. Ask for permission for the image to be released under a free license, or seek another image under a free license.
  • All references to media articles (The Guardian, etc) should be cited.
  • What are the criticisms of extreme ironing? The article seems weighted towards praising it.
  • How about more on the Extreme Ironing Bureau and the breakaway Urban Housework. Is this a big rivalry? Also need more general information about the EIB. When did it form?
  • What is the Rowenta Trophy? Who sponsors it? Why is it important? — WiseKwai 19:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, SenatorsTalk | Contribs 00:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hasmonean

This article concerns the history of the Hasmonean Dynasty, in a period that includes the aftermath of Alexander the Great's Empire, the conflict between Ptolemaic Egypt and the Seleucid Empire; significant events in Jewish history such as the festival of Hannukah and the achievement of Jewish national self-determination; the rise of the Roman Republic and Roman Empire, and wars involving among others: Julius Caesar, Pompey the Great, and Mark Antony. Not to mention a period of time encompassing early Christianity. I have been unable to attract any interest at WikiProject Jewish History, or WP:Requests for feedback. Since I have been staring at my own prose for about two weeks I can't even see the spelling errors anymore, and I'm not sure that the narrative flow of the article is all that good. Thus, I thought some Peer Review would be useful.

I realize better sourcing is needed. I am not sure if the timeline really adds to the article. I would welcome any other suggestions or contributions. Kaisershatner 13:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, sourcing is an issue - there need to be more. Focusing on prose though:

  • The first sentence is quite complex and dives straight into the detail. I think the main clause should be "The Hasmonean Kingdom was a..." to clearly define it before going into detail about its establishment.
  • There's inconsistent linking of dates: 165BCE is linked, 576 isn't (if there is a reason for this, then fine)
  • Sentence beginning "Antiochus had successfully invaded Egypt..." has 6 commas and subsequently is hard to follow. I suggests splitting it (or using semicolons, or removing a couple of the commas).
  • The last paragraph of the lead also has a lot of commas making it hard to follow. It is also ambiguous in parts: in 139 BCE, did the Maccabbee Revolt establish an independent Jewish Kingdom, or did the Senate recognise it then?

In my opinion, the lead should be a bit simpler and written in more straightforward English, perhaps sacrificing some of the less important details for clarity. Sentences with lots of sub-clauses and asides become very difficult to follow. Skimming the rest of the article (I can look at it in more detail if you want):

  • Some of the paragraphs in "Founding" are very short, linking them would be better (there are also a few in other sections).
  • The timeline seems alright to me (the font seems a little small, but it might just be my computer).

On the whole, it seems very good. Just need to sort out the rest of the referencing and give it a copyedit, and it'll be excellent. Trebor 18:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yabasic

Hi. I'd like the article on the programming language Yabasic to be reviewed by a wider group of editors; what needs to be done to improve it? References are obviously a start, but I welcome any critism and suggestions on how this article could be made better. Yuser31415 06:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't make an Example the first section, I'd put something else first (also avoiding the problem of the code box overlapping the infobox). Could there be more information on the background and history f the language, when it began and so on? And as you say, references are obviously needed. Trebor 19:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of recordings preserved in the United States National Recording Registry

I would like to nominate this list as a featured list. Please review accordingly. TonyTheTiger 06:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if the phrasing of the above statement threw reviewers off. I meant please review in a way that will help me toward that end, which is probably the normal way a list would be reviewed. TonyTheTiger 01:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, SenatorsTalk | Contribs 05:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little unclear what the years refer to, do they correspond to the year the recording was seletcted? At any rate, it could be clarified in the lead. Are there any appropriate images for this to add some variation to the article? Trebor 19:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Orlowski

How much about Wikipedia should remain in this article? He makes it a focus of his works, but self-referencing is quite pointless. -- Zanimum 17:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

Yannismarou

A critic of Wikipedia ! This is my review:

  • The lead is too short. Check LEAD.
  • I see a [citation needed]. Fix it.
  • Nothing about his life? Early years? Personal life? Stydies? You go straight to "Early career" and 1992. What about 1966-1992?
  • "Early career" is stubby. I suggest you expand.
  • I see some stubby one-sentence paragraphs. Merge or expand them.
  • "The Register" is full of scattered info, not well-connected with one another, and, subsequently, the prose flow is bad. All this info may be useful, but you should put it in an order.
  • Not all your online references use Template:cite news.
  • The article on Wikipedia is not long. Especially if the rest of the article gets expanded.
  • Trim the "see also" section. After my edit, it has just one link. It would be incorporated somewhere in the main article.--Yannismarou 20:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What happens when a person keeps their pre-career life private? -- Zanimum 19:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then, our cabability of improving the article is limited.--Yannismarou 10:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Hanneman

I wish to bring this up to GA status, second peer review. I have implemented all suggestions on the last peer review and have since added two new sections and more references. Thanks M3tal H3ad 08:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated

Yannismarou

Minor things! The article seems set for GA status. These are my remarks:

  • "The two live in Los Angeles with no children, and live forty minutes away from King, and often have BBQ's". It sounds a bit repetitive to me.
  • "Hanneman will come up with riffs at his house, using a 24-track and drum machine. Hanneman will show ..." Again, this could maybe be rephrased.
  • Is he regarded by music critics as a good guirast, a good writer of lyrics?
  • You could maybe have a caption in Hanneman's photo (I saw that it is "Jeff Hanneman performing at The Unholy Alliance tour in 2006").
  • Any expansion of the "Biography" section with further info would be welcome.--Yannismarou 14:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pinguicula moranensis

I wrote this article last week. This species is probably the most taxanomically challenging one in the genus, and this article is the only thorough overview of this species in the English language. Nearly every work ever published on this species is integrated somewhere. I would appreciate:

  • A stylistic review that would help me polish this article for FA candidacy and
  • A scientific review, particularly of the section on phylogenetics, a subject I understand little of. I've tried to summarize pertinent phylogenetic studies, but I was only able to make somewhat vague conclusions.

Thanks in advance for any help. --NoahElhardt 01:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 10500 ft, use 10500 ft, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 10500&nbsp;ft.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), avoid capitalizing words unless they are proper nouns or the first word of the heading.
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: neighbor (A) (British: neighbour), meter (A) (British: metre), metre (B) (American: meter), recognize (A) (British: recognise), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization).
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, SenatorsTalk | Contribs 03:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a very nice article; you've done an excellent job, and the pictures are great. Some suggestions:
  • The lead is a bit dense with plant terms that will be unfamiliar to outsiders, some of which aren't wikilinked: succulent, mucilaginous, etc. Similarly, is "substrate" the soil, or is there a more specific meaning? I'm not sure that the various redefinitions of the species need to be in the lead, or at least not with the names mentioned in such detail. The lead should summarize the whole article, so less history and more "other stuff" would be better - for example, mention the distinct summer and winter rosettes.
  • I've linked succulent, mucilagenous, substrate (and a few other words), and re-organized the lead paragraphs, balancing them to better reflect the weight of the article.
  • The images near the beginning of the article, especially after the 'winter rosette' section, appear rather crowded.
  • Are you referring to the image illustrating the 'Winter rosette' section, the the ones in the following 'Flowers' section? I selected the three flower images because I wanted to show both the external anatomy/morphology of the flower, as well as the unusual variability that exists in the species.
Yes, those are the ones - the images themselves are well chosen; they just lay out awkwardly. However, take this with a grain of salt - I usually browse at very high resolution, so it looks like there's not enough text to fill around all the images. I looked at it at 1600x1200 and it looks okay. Opabinia regalis 05:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same 'plant jargon' as in the lead comes up in the text: phrases like "obovate leaves", which have a clearly defined meaning, could use an appositive explanation.
  • I can't avoid some morphological terms in the morphology section, but I think I've linked them all now.
Point taken :) Much better. Opabinia regalis 05:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a biochemist, I'd like to see more on the enzymes involved in carnivory, especially if there's anything unique about those expressed in this species or genus.
The enzymes are a genus-wide characteristic, and so more detail is probably not appropriate for this article. The paper from which I got the list of enzymes didn't cite sources, but I'll try to dig some more information up for you and add it to the Pinguicula article. NoahElhardt 05:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some context would be useful for the 'great variation' in flower color and morphology; I'm not a botanist and I see a bunch of similar-looking pinkish-purple flowers. The caption to this figure would be more helpful if it pointed out some of the flowers' specific traits that vary. Is it unusual for a single species' flower color to vary this much? What about the size?
  • I've added information to the caption. Unless you look closely, you WILL only see similar-looking flowers. But in most plant populations you look at, flowers will look generally the same or have really minor differences even if you DO look closely.
That's more useful, I think. Opabinia regalis 05:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since this is a cultivated plant, is it important or relevant in local culture? Grown outside of Mexico for any reason? Has its wild habitat been altered or threatened in any way by local development?
I haven't ever read or heard of known cultural relevance. It is grown outside of Mexico horticulturally (mainly by carnivorous plant hobbyists), as stated in the "Cultivation" section. Since it is a widespread plant, grows mainly in mountainous areas, and colonizes disturbed areas such as road cuts, the survival of the species has not been threatened by development. There isn't really any data that I can use in the article, since nobody has bothered to investigate the impact of development.NoahElhardt 05:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason I had the impression that a lot of carnivorous plants were threatened or endangered. Shows what I know. Opabinia regalis 01:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That impression was correct - you are more informed than most folks out there. The reason for this is that many carnivorous plants grow in wetlands, which in developing countries are usually drained to make room for development. Other CP's (such as Sarracenia oreophila and Nepenthes rajah) have such a limited distribution that any development in the area would threaten their survival. (Check out the timeline at the bottom of the N. rajah article btw. It is hidden by default but can be expanded using the "show" link. That's what I had in mind for the parsimony trees.) NoahElhardt 02:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is a fairly common impression. Maybe it'd be worth a sentence to mention that unlike some other carnivorous plants, this one's habitat is not threatened by development?
I can try, but as I've mentioned, I don't really have any data/sources to back that up. Does stating that it isn't endangered inferred from its known large distribution and habitat preference count as original research? Or can I say it isn't endangered just based on the fact that it doesn't show up on the IUCN Red List? -NoahElhardt 05:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd think not on the red list would be enough. Opabinia regalis 02:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for the phylogenetic trees - I'm not sure about hiding them by default unless they're so big that they can't fit in the article with the text. I'd either put a combined diagram or choose one tree that is from the most notable/authoritative/widely accepted study. Opabinia regalis 04:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's the hangup: I really can't quite tell which diagram is most authoritative because I don't understand the studies behind them well enough. As far as being widely accepted, its hard to tell at this point; one was published in 2001 and the other in 2005. I'll do a more thorough read through of the articles this weekend and see if I can get some kind of feel for how they were set up differently, how exactly their results differ, and how best to summarize that in a NPOV way. -NoahElhardt 05:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you expand on the descriptions of the cultivars? This information might be better presented in a table.
  • I can expand in some cases. Good idea on the table - I'll work on converting it into one.
  • The references need a bit of formatting work; there's some in the refs list that aren't in the notes. It'd be better to have separate sections for 'cited references' and 'further reading'. Opabinia regalis 04:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The notes only list inline citations. I listed some of the references because they provided background information during my research or because an the publication was mentioned in the text. In the history sections, I mentioned authors who had published various species or taxanomic works. I only inline cited my source of that historical information, but then listed the original publications in the references. Is there a better way to do this? Should these publications be inline cited as well, even though I haven't (and can't) actually read most of them?
I usually see people list the ones they didn't directly cite in a subsection like "general references". But I rarely use that style - maybe something to ask User:SandyGeorgia, she's the resident FAC reference expert. Opabinia regalis 05:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't addressed all your points yet, I'll get to the rest tomorrow. Thanks for taking the time to review the article - I appreciate it. NoahElhardt 06:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also read the phylogenetics section in a bit more detail - it'd be nice to know the morphological characteristics that produced the most distinctions/were most informative in classifying species from the studies that used morphological data. The phrase "providing evidence for a genetically-based taxonomic structure" isn't clear; molecular data always produces "genetically based" taxonomies. I don't know if you have this data, but it would be clearer if you had images of the major studies' final phylogenetic trees. Also - maybe there's still a need for more wikilinks - I'm not sure what the distinctions are between a group of "varieties" and a "complex".
I have three different trees I could use for the article, but since they give different results and I don't want to (a) clutter the article or (b) make a judgement call (POV) on which tree is most accurate without a much better understanding of both studies involved, I'd rather leave them out for now. Should I add at least two of them though and make them collapsed so that they don't clutter? NoahElhardt 05:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure; what do you mean by 'make them collapsed'? Depending how different they are, maybe you could make a combined diagram that shows the major points of agreement between the three as well as the alternative placements of this particular species. Opabinia regalis 01:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lastly - you often include in the text the names of the individual scientists who did the research you're citing. Unless the researchers themselves are notable, or the study is well-known by the authors' name, just use an inline citation and leave the names to the references; it makes the text easier to read. Opabinia regalis 05:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll read through those sections with that in mind - you are probably right in that I could drop several names.
I have one question: Several of the publications I referenced ARE available online, but I am somewhat hesitant to link to them since they are on a page marked "You are in a restricted area, publications are for a private use only as needed material for [name of webpage]". Nevertheless, I'd like readers/reviewers to be able to look up the original sources as much as possible. Your thoughts? NoahElhardt 05:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hard to tell without looking at the site - maybe just include it as an external link, and mention that it hosts reprints of the papers? (Assuming it has permission to host them and they're freely available.) It's become common in bio FAs to include PubMed IDs for references to papers; if the journals you're citing are indexed in PubMed (or a similar database), that would be a useful set of links. Also someone will ask you to include ISBNs for the book sources, most likely. Opabinia regalis 01:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The site probably does not have permission to host them. Here's the link to the parent site [15], and the page itself [16]. NoahElhardt 02:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely don't link to a site that is redistributing content without permission, but linking to PubMed or an equivalent database, if one exists, is convenient for readers. Alternatively link directly to the journal, with a note if they're open-access or pay sites. Opabinia regalis 04:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. Although I was able to find one website listing the common name "Mexican Butterwort", this is a generic name widely applied to all (or most) butterworts native to Mexico (>30 species). Since it is both ambiguous and not in common usage (botanists and hobbyists alike refer to it by the latin name), I didn't list the common name. --NoahElhardt 05:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Might be wise to add a note to the effect that it doesn't have a general agreed English name. I wondered why it wasn't there -- a note would make it clear that it's not a hole in the article. Goldfritha 02:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On that subject, is there a common name in Spanish? Opabinia regalis 04:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I've run across. I'll add a footnote to that effect shortly.--NoahElhardt 05:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A quick glance makes me notice paragraphs that are *far* too long (Under "Habits", which is actualy only one paragraph! and "Leaves and carnivory"), and I'm in 1080 resolution. I can't even begin to think what they look like at 800.Circeus 15:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ellis Paul

I'm a relatively new Wiki editor. Would like constructive feedback in my goal to reach FA status and would like a few members of the WikiBioProject to rate the article. Thank you in advance for your assistance. Kmzundel 00:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, SenatorsTalk | Contribs 03:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou

Nice job. But it needs some work to be in accord with Wikipedia's standards and criteria. This is my review:

  • You must also tell us in the lead date and place of birth. Usually this is done in a parenthesis. Check a recently promoted biographical FA article to take an idea. Check also WP:LEAD about how a lead should be - the lead must be a comprehensive summary of the article.
  • "Critics have praised him for a charismatic, personally authentic performance style that has influenced other folk-pop musicians. While remaining among the most pop-friendly of today's singer-songwriters with songs that have appeared in movies and TV, he has bridged the gulf between the modern folk sound and the populist traditions of Woody Guthrie and Pete Seeger more successfully than many of his songwriting peers." All these are assessments that need citing; otherwise they could be regarded as weasel words or, worse, original research. Unless you repeat and analyse these assessments in the main article. But I do not think you do that. Maybe if you decide to rewrite the lead, you could remove or repeat and further analyze these assessments in a new section named "Assessments" or "Criticisms". This is just a suggestion.
The lead is the only paragraph I did NOT write and was hesitant to remove it, but I will re-work it, taking your comments into consideration.Kmzundel
  • Do not wikilink single years (1983); per MoS we wikilink only full dates (May 8 1983).
Not my work either. Thought it was odd. Will remove. Kmzundel
  • Many short or bigger quotes interrupting the prose. Maybe you could trim some of them or use alternative ways to introduce them. You could take ideas from two of the articles I've worked on: Demosthenes and El Greco. Some recasting into alternative language could also help.
  • "Although Paul goes on to say that the four musicians learned a lot from each other, End Construction eventually ran its course and disbanded." Try to avoid single-sentence paragraphs like this one. They are not good both for the layout and the flow of the article's flow.
  • "Paul was signed to Rounder in 1994.
After trying for five years, Paul was invited to play the Kerrville Folk Festival in 1994. He won the Kerrville New Folk Award that year." Just an example of choppy prose.
Understood. Kmzundel
  • Maybe you could add more infos about his musical style and what the critics and specialists of music say about it.
That is the next area I planned to tackle. Kmzundel
  • Are all your references from magazines? If yes, don't you have any on-line versions of these articles. In any case, if you have or you find any online versions of other articles, you could use Template:cite news. I also think the current references need further formatting.
  • In order to see how discography should be given, check any FA of an artist, e.g. Celine Dion.
  • The awards section is long and listy for me. Maybe you could think about turining it into prose and speaking about the most important of these awards making a selection, if you think this section is necessary. But again, have a second opinion for this particular issue.--Yannismarou 19:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Will take all comments under advisement and continue editing. Thank you! Kmzundel 19:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Incorporated many of your suggestions! Thank you again! Kmzundel 02:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Truthiness

previous PR

Chris Gardner

My goal for this project is to bring it up to GA, and if possible FA, status.

I am aware that the article could use a more NPOV. Perhaps my adjective choices are too dramatic? I tried my best to balance out the sources, but I find that most of the information that I find tends to focus on the movie The Pursuit of Happyness or the most recent twenty years of Gardner's life. Therefore, his autobiography provided most of the information I included about his early life.

Constructive suggestions for improvement are welcome.

Brinabina 21:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou

Nice job, but I do believe that there are some serious POV problems. This is my review:

  • In some cases the tone of the prose gets hagiographic. This is not our goal in Wikipedia. A I say somewhere else "The prose can be sentimental but not un-encyclopedic or POV. Sentimentalism is a great weapon, if you know how to use it. If you don't know this "art", don't try it!" These are some examples from the lead, which IMO are problematic: "Gardner owes the greater part of his current success to his mother's early encouragement and to the sense of responsibility and high expectations placed on him, then her only son." "Chris Gardner's childhood was fraught with discouraging circumstances and hardships. Despite enduring abuse at the hands of his mother's husband, Freddie Triplett, Gardner resolved that he would someday become a loving and dedicated father to his own children. This determination, in addition to his mother's early encouragement, motivated him to succeed at life and business even when the odds appeared to be stacked against him."
  • "Gardner's journey from a homeless single father to self-made millionaire is portrayed by the 2006 major motion picture .
Gardner's book of memoirs sharing the same title was published earlier the same year by Amistad, an imprint of HarperCollins Publishers." Why do you break the paragraph here? And why do you break it with a <br />? And not with an empty line, as we do when we want to create a new paragraph in Wikipedia. IMO there is no opinion two have two stubby paragraphs in a row at the end of the lead.
  • "Gardner's journey from a homeless single father to self-made millionaire is portrayed by the 2006 major motion picture The Pursuit of Happyness, [4] starring actor Will Smith." Cite in the middle of a sentence only if it is absolutely necessary; otherwise at the end of the sentence. And do not leave a gap between the punctuation mark and the citation.
  • "Early years" is another example of problematic and potentially uncyclopedic writing. What abou his education? Why he was in foster care? First, we give the necessary infos; then we assess the info if necessary and again in an encyclopedic way. And I also think you should repeat infos of the lead enriched (when he was born? Where?). The article starts from scratch! The problem of uncyclopedic writing is not confined in this section.
  • "Then, just after the birth of Chris' first son". When? Was he married? You suddenly speak about his son, without having told us anything relevant previously.
  • "In 1983 and in four years succeeded in making a notable impact on their yearly revenues". Per MoS do not wikiling single years. Only full dates (May 8, 1978).
  • I was thinking that "Business ventures" is fine, and then I read that:"Gardner is currently working on an investment venture with South Africa that will create hundreds of jobs and introduce millions of much-needed foreign currency into the nation." Isn't it a bit ethnocentric?
  • "Adamantly determined to raise". I don't like "adamantly"; it looks like a verbalism and a bit POV.
  • I would like to have more infos about his personal life. I don't think I learnt everything I wanted. Does he also have a daughter? I thought I learnt that by accident.
  • I also think more infos could be added about his course towards success. As a reader I got the impression I was given just a short summary version of this interesting story.

--Yannismarou 19:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Yannismarou,

User Brinabina and I have done a lot of work on re-editing the Chris Gardner article. Your comments were very helpful. Below I respond to each of the points you've raised and what we've done to correct it:

  • The lead is now more concise, condensed into two paragraphs. The sentences you highlighted as being problematic have either been deleted or reworded to be less sentimental and more factual.
  • 'Gardner's journey from homeless father to self-made millionaire is portrayed by the 2006 major motion picture" has been altered to Gardners personal journey is portrayed in the 2006..."
  • The footnote citations in the article have been altered, where possible, so that they appear at the end of the sentence.
  • I have rewritten and reordered 'Early years', adding in additional background info - hope this reads better now.
  • 'Then just after the birth of Chris' first son' has been changed to 'Then shortly after the birth of Chris Jr. in 1981'
  • I have removed the wikilink from 1983
  • I have removed 'much-needed' from the phrase :"Gardner is currently working on an investment venture with South Africa that will create hundreds of jobs and introduce millions of much-needed foreign currency into the nation." so that it has less enthocentric connotations
  • I don't like 'adamantly either - it has been removed!
  • Info on Gardner's daughter Jacintha has been added.
  • The whole article has been streamlined and various points have been enlarged upon.

We'd be grateful if you could re-read the article and give us your feedback. SJCharlton 09:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yannismarou

Thanks for your review. I have made several edits that preserve the changes made by SJCharleton, while improving clarity, flow and NPOV. Here are some of the major changes. Please give us your opinion on them:

  • The lead section has been restructured for clarity and better chronology, then a second paragraph has been added as a concise summary of the article.
  • I added information about his sisters.
  • The beginning of “early years” was modified to include his date of birth.
  • I added infos about his experience as a medic in the Navy and his clinical research in the field of cardiology.
  • I added a section called “marriage and fatherhood” where I included infos about his failed marriage and his decision to forego the pursuit of a medical career, as well as the chronology of the various challenges he faced in the pursuit of a position in a stock brokerage training program.

I hope that our changes will get the article to GA status. Brinabina 08:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Salisbury

I'd like to improve upon this article and bring it up to a good or a good article rating. Please make any suggestions necessary. Eulogy4Afriend 18:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony_cfc

This article is currently at starting quality; there is much need for improvement, as it currently is nothing but a shell of information. Also, goodness knows why it is listed as a "death-related article" using the template {{death-stub}}! Good work so far, but consider getting some external resources (perhaps from your local library) if you really want to get this article going. Regards, Anthonycfc [T • C] 16:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou

First of all, the article needs expansio. I do not think a peer-review is much useful, if the article does not first reach B-Class status. Try to gather more infos, and check also WP:LEAD and WP:LAYOUT for a better structure. And why do I see a red link in "See also" section? Do you intend to create it soon?--Yannismarou 21:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Playford IV

Sir Thomas Playford served as Premier of South Australia from November 5, 1938 to March 10, 1965, which at 26 years and 125 days, remains a British Commonwealth record for the longest time someone has served as a democratically elected national or regional leader.

This is my sixth attempt at a featured article, and if successful, it will be my fifth gained. Any comments, on any aspect of the article, will be attended to promptly. Thank you, michael talk 13:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has certainly developed a long way from my first draft of the article and I can find little to fault it. As I mentioned earlier, I think some people may complain about the red links, particularly the constituencies. Other than that, I think his life and times are well covered but perhaps we could cover his political and social philosophy in greater detail. Finally; this isn't criticism but I've always wondered about the claim of holding the "British Commonwealth record for the longest time someone has served as a democratically elected national or regional leader". I have yet to find anyone outside the Commonwealth who served longer. It would be great if we could find whoever the person or people may be who apparently served longer than 26 years as national or regional leader (of course this is not to the detriment of the article). --Roisterer 01:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that... it concentrates too much on what he did, as opposed to who he was? This is one area that I think I'm going to need to work on. michael talk 05:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say it concentrates too much on what he did. Rather, that here was someone who always seemed prepared to go against his party's tenets to get what he wanted (such as nationalising industries and so forth). It is covered to an extent within the article but if we can come up with something to put his actions into a context, that will advanttage the article. --Roisterer 03:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added two extra paragraphs. Tell me what you think. michael talk 04:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, i think they help greatly. --Roisterer 06:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A table containing the election results he participated in, including votes by number, percentage, and seats won would be very good and a way of indicating how the Playmander helped him. An excellent resource I came across is http://elections.uwa.edu.au/ which contains all state and federal election results since 1890. Looking at his elections myself, it's astonishing how many seats the parties won considering the percentage of votes received... *major* rural overweighting. Timeshift 20:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Table added. Timeshift 17:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Only Fools and Horses episodes

Just looking for suggestions to being this up to Featured List standard. What aspects need to be removed, cited or clarified etc. SteveO 13:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.

Reign in Blood

This is on a CD and the second peer review. Is currently a GA nominee and would like any more comments to further improve it. M3tal H3ad 03:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My 2 cents:

  • please link "third studio" to a definition of some sort. Not being a die-hard audiophile, I was left confused regarding its meaning for the remainder of the article.
  • Please cite sources for the delay.
  • Please verify and cite sources for the nazism rumour, that's a very precarious thing to attack in the lead.
  • Every time you use the album's title, punctuation dictates that you italicize it.
  • Please cite/verify that it is really the first gold album for the band.
  • Expand lead per WP:LEAD.
  • A light copyedit is necessary, but it looks decent. Good job so far.

If my corrections are followed and no users bring up problems I read over, expect my vote for its FA. Just make sure you drop a line. Evan(Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!) 23:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michaelas10

I suppose getting it FA quality would be quite difficult considering the very few existing sources and documentation regarding the album. It could use some copyediting; here are my suggestions:

  • ...thrash-metal - No hyphen here.
  • ...released October 7, 1986 - "In" would fit better here.
  • ...opening track, "Angel Of Death" detailed - Add a comma.
  • ...giving the band a sonic - A chronic?
  • ...guitarist Jeff Hanneman states - Lets stick with the past tense.
  • ...but became the band's to enter - Doesn't make sense.
  • ...number 94, and number 47 in the UK. - Split this to a separate sentence. Also refer to the UK charts rather than UK itself.
  • ...and ranked in Q magazine's - Reword to Q magazine ranked it among the..."
  • ...influencing former Sepultura drummer Igor Cavalera stating - Ouch. Reword.
  • ...Malevolent Creation, Chimaira and Erik Hinds - Serial comma.
  • ...entire album on solo H'arpeggione. - Grammar.
  • ...set list, played - Being played.
  • ...the band played the record - What record? The album?
  • ...The Progressive, The Village Voice and the New York Times - Serial comma again.
  • ...accusations of Nazi sympathizing" - Remove the unnecessary quotation mark.
  • ...about Mengele, while Slayer were on tour - No need in a comma here.
  • ...second in command in the Schutzstaffel organization. - Reword to ...second in the Schutzstaffel organization's command.
  • ...early CD pressings, that set - Switch that to which.

Further issues:

  • ...under the same name - That's basically not correct, although the name was based on the album's name.
  • The lead indeed could use an expansion in order to meet WP:LEAD.
  • ...did not appear on the label's release schedule - Confusing. Which label's release schedule? Do you mean the original release schedule?
  • ...featuring the band covered in a "wall of blood", while performing "Raining Blood" - Also confusing. Some, including myself, may think "wall of blood" is actually a track.
  • Try to add additional professional reviews.
  • Simply too many quotation marks on words and labels. Try to explain some of these in encyclopedic terms. For instance, instead of ...to ditch the "Satan" theme you could put ...to ditch the Satanic theme. Michaelas10 (Talk) 16:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Made all the changes, i know what you mean regarding FA, i guess I'll stick with GA, thanks for comments. M3tal H3ad 01:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LuciferMorgan

  • 2001 Kerrang interview with Kerry King; "The truth is, if you released 'Reign In Blood' today, noone would give a shit. It was timing, it was a change in sound. In thrash metal at that time, noone had ever heard good production on a record like that. It was just a bunch of things that came together at once." LuciferMorgan 22:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cannibal Corpse interview where their drummer talks about Lombardo and Reign in Blood; "Primarily and personally as for a band that I idolized it was SLAYER and Dave Lombardo that did it for me. The very first influence that made me want to play music was KISS but then growing up… When SLAYER came out. Especially "Reign in Blood" to me, it was just so amazing and Lombardo is just so great. He made me want to do what I want to do. I wanted to play fast. That is what moved me the most in my heart. I would have to say that that is definitely the biggest influence for me. If there was no SLAYER what would modern death metal music be like?" LuciferMorgan 23:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Krisiun interview where their drummer says as concerns Lombardo, Reign in Blood, etc.; "Dave Lombardo was my main influence, especially in the beginning. I remember when I was listening to Metallica, I was kind of inspired by the drummer back in the 'Master of Puppets' and 'Ride the Lightning' days. Then I heard Slayer and I thought the drummer was unbelievable. It was so unbelievable when I heard 'Hell Awaits' and 'Reign in Blood' for the first time. It was so fast, so brutal. The fills, and a lot of things. I remember hearing the song "Silent Scream" from 'South of Heaven' for the first time. It just blew me away. It was like fast double-bass, fast kicks during the whole song. That was very inspiring for me."
  • Live review (free registration required) of Slayer from NY Times; "In 1986, the band recorded Reign in Blood, an album that's still the primary sacrament of death-metal; the short, powerful record mixed the rhythms of hardcore punk with a single-minded focus on ritual violence." Info; the article name is "POP REVIEW; It's a Major Metal Band, and Even the Furniture Isn't Safe", written by Ben Ratliff, published on June 22nd 1998 in New York Times, and is a live review of a Slayer performance at Irving Plaza on the Wednesday prior to the article's publication. LuciferMorgan 04:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Reign In Blood was really the first album that solidified Slayer's unique sound, obviously a major part of this is largely due to producer Rick Rubin?

Absolutely, he took out all the reverb and everything and made it more where it hit you right between the eyes. Once we realized that we didn't need reverb, and our sound was a lot more threatening without it, we just kept it and it was done." LuciferMorgan 01:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seegoon

I see there's already been quite a lot suggested here and I haven't read it all, so apologies if I repeat anything. That said, something being repeated just indicates to you that it's very important.

  • I'm just looking at the Professional Reviews section in the infobox. It's not a major thing, but I'm sure some much bigger magazines will have published reviews. Rolling Stone, Q, Kerrang! - try to get some printed sources. It'd be tough, but add a shedload of veracity to the article, and also allow you some very eloquent quotes to pull.
RS never reviewed the album - all older Slayer reviews are on RS's official website. Q usually deals with alternative music so doubtful they did - Kerrang should've though. LuciferMorgan 03:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The band stated numerous times they do not condone Nazism, and are merely interested in the subject." - I'd add a "however" in here to improve logical flow from the previous statement. Maybe: "The band has, however, stated on numerous occasions that they do not condone Nazism, and are merely interested in the subject."
  • "apprehensive about leaving Metal Blade Records as they were contracted" - maybe change to "to whom they were contracted", or "who they held a contract with"?
  • "Lombardo called Columbia Records - Def Jams distributor and Rubin agreed to come to see the band play - with photographer Glen E. Friedman." - the structure here is a little confusing.
  • "Chronic makeover" - maybe "drastic" or "massive"? Chronic sounds a little pejorative.
  • "King states that hour long records seem to be the trend; “You could lose this part; you could cut this song completely,” and make a much more intense record, which is what we’re all about." - I'm not entirely sure where the quote ends here.
  • "“So what?”[3]" - you need a space after this reference.
  • In reception, you need to ensure that you italicise the album title every time you use it, even if it is a direct quote. Also - you say "mainly" positive reviews. To me, they sound overwhelmingly and permanently positive. If you're going to say they're "mainly" positive, try to dig out a not-so-positive one. Your best bet is Metacritic.
  • "Former Sepultura drummer Igor Cavalera, was influenced by the album, stating "the 80s, when shit was pure,"[13]" - I think you need to add some context to this, as the quote doesn't directly express the album's influence on him.
  • Italicise Porsche.
  • "live set list played at every show, these two tracks are also Hanneman's favorite" - a comma doesn't work here. Change it to a semicolon.
  • "On finishing the artwork a member was not happy with the final product, until one member showed their mother, who said it was disgusting." - cite, specify.
  • "on her album Strange Little Girls, King states the cover was odd;" - I'd change this comma into a full stop.

I think that's all I can spot. Overall, great article, and good luck with wherever you're taking it. Seegoon 15:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand

Essentially a blanket peer review. As much information as possible to bring up to at least good article or featured article status. --Midnighttonight (rendezvous) 02:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


One thing you need to address is that there need to be more resources cited in the article. For example, how could I prove that New Zealanders are the 16 highest beer consumers? Every statistic like that has to be sourced. I would also make an attempt to find sources backing up the historical claims that you make about New Zealand. How would I as an American know where to begin to find the information that you listed about the history. It is not common information here and as such should be sourced. I am sure that people in other parts of the world would have no clue where you learned this to prove it. In the very least provide the sources that are used on the subtopic pages for this kind of information. Andrew D White 22:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just comment on two things until I have a chance to look the article over properly:

  • The lead needs a lot of work. The second sentence mentions Maori without introducing that it is the indigenous language of New Zealand. The sentence "New Zealand, Hawaii and Easter Island form what is known by anthropologists as the Polynesian Triangle." needs to be incorporated into a paragraph, rather then sitting on it's own. There are also redundancies throughout the lead. I think maybe the lead focuses too much on geography. The economy, culture and history are barely mentioned.
  • There are not enough references, as well, the referencing style is inconsistent. There are very few inline citations, instead there are simply external links at the end of sentences. These should be converted to inline citations.

I'll add more later. - Shudda talk 01:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC) Have done govt and culture:[reply]

  • The government section isn't too bad. Covers everything I can think of, only thing is delist the major and minor political parties.
  • The culture section:
  • First paragraph seems ok.
  • "Māori culture survives as Māori continue to support and develop their culture on their own terms and conditions - much as any other living and thriving culture does in the world." Does this sentence say or mean anything?
  • The paragraph on the Maori language is good, however Language may need it's own section?
  • The sentence on film probably focuses too much on recent films, doesn't really mention any local programmes (ie produced for NZ). Nor does it mention the broadcasting commission or film commission. Maybe needs to focus less on film & tv aimed at international audiences.
  • "Taumatawhakatangihangakoauauotamateapokaiwhenuakitanatahu is the longest Māori word. It is the name of a hill in the Hawke's Bay region of the North Island. The Guinness Book of World Records lists this as the longest geographical name in the world." This sentence is trivial, and if it weren't wouldn't it go in the geography section?
  • I don't like the last paragraph at all. NZ's domestic music scene is so diverse "New Zealand's music is influenced by the indigenous Māori and immigrants from the Pacific region." is mentioned before the mention of British, American influences. Makes it seem like some influences are greater then others, but this is prob not true. Prob needs a good rewrite. May want to mention Flying Nun? Also, should prob remove "New Zealand music is a vibrant expression of the culture of New Zealand." seems rather POV.

Coronation Street

I have recently given this former Featured Article a massive overhaul, changed many of its sections and dealt with the problems it had that ultimately led to its FA withdrawal. I would really like some feedback and comments from other Wikipedians to see what you think of the improvements and if anything else should be done. I am intending to subit the article for FA status again once any problems and issues are ironed out. Thankyou for your time! Ben 23:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Network

I respectfully request peer review comments on this article. The top priority is suggestions for stylistic formatting of references, footnotes and bibliography. The next priority is suggestions realting to the structure of the article. I will, naturally, be keenly interested in any other suggestions that occur to editors. If by any chance editors happen to have material directly relating to the Blue Network, I would be delighted to see it.

Sincerely yours,

Eric O. Costello 20:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the rating of the article to A-class, for which it clearly qualifies under the criteria. The two things I see it needs at this point to go forward to a Featured Article candidacy, which it's deserving of:
(A) An expansion of the lede to two or three paragraphs, summarizing the main points of the article, with an eye toward explaining to the passing reader (one who is not planning to dive into the whole piece) what made NBC Blue important (it might get them to dive).
(B) A copyedit just to streamline the language a bit, format headers, etc. I enjoy copyediting and would be happy to do that, if you're comfortable with it.
As I go through it again, I may find specific points that need clarification, but unquestionably you've done an excellent job all around. Best, Dan—DCGeist 21:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Press Gang

Hi all. I've practically written all of this in its current state and would like to submit it for GA. I'd appreciate your suggestions for what could improve the article (including beyond GA). I don't always find vague comments like "some phrases are poorly constructed" helpful... if you have copyediting skills I'd find it much more helpful if you could correct such errors. The JPStalk to me 15:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Velfarre

I have been trying to improve this article past stub-class quality, and would like some advice on howto continue. What would you want to know when viewing an article about a club? What would you not want to know? What images would you like to see when viewing this page, or a page about another club/disco? I know that this article isn't able to achieve featured article status, however I would like to give an accurate and complete description of velfarre. Also, please critque and comment on the writing style. I have tried to stay concise and informative. Thanks for reading and your time! -- Nictius 14:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The timeline seems difficult to read and unecyclopedic to me. I suggest writing summarized paragraphs that cover the main events only. Sparkzilla 23:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extraterrestrial hypothesis

I am attempting to head of a showdown with another user whom holds conflicting views with myself on the appropriate level of skepticism to use when dealing with pseudoscience and the paranormal, and am requesting a peer review on this basis.

Ideally, I am looking for constructive comments on areas where this page needs altering to comply to comply with WP:NPOV, and that it is presenting an over view of the situation, rather than an argument for or against.

What I am not looking for are comments on WP:RS, or the factual/fictional nature of Aliens (this article is not actually about the truth of extraterrestrials, only the specific belief that some lights in the sky are/are not alien space ships).

perfectblue 12:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that as long as the article avoids using opinions as the basis of proof of the hypothesis, then it is probably okay. The list of supporters of this hypothesis seems unbalanced; a corresponding list of opponents would likely be much longer. Perhaps the list could be set up as a category? The article could use a section concerning the nature of scientific inquiry in this context; including the strong requirement for reproducable results and the difficulting of absolutely disproving the existence of something (such as the existence of angels or demons, for example). Finally the McDonald quote is inordinately long and should be worked into the text. — RJH (talk) 17:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

School band

The article needs some fixing up. A peer review would do good. --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 05:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that it's hard to find much information to cite on this article. --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 05:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coca-Cola

I am requsting a peer review for Coca-Cola because it has been recently promoted to Good Article Status and I want to know what needs to be done to promote the article to Featured Article Status. Natl1 18:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The most obvious thing the article needs are references. There are a few very well sourced sections and others, which barely have any references.


  • The lead section includes the phrase "well into the 21st cenury", which should be changed to "to the present day", because the current version implies that the drink stopped being popular after some time in the 21st century.



  • It would be cool, if the year Pemberton's French Wine Coca was invented was mentioned


  • "Coca-Cola did actually contain cocaine at one point per se, which is a highly refined extract of coca leaves and was always far too expensive to use in a mass-market beverage. However, as cocaine is one of numerous alkaloids present in the coca leaf, it was nevertheless present in the drink." These sentences need to be re-written.


  • There is no information on the period between 1891 and WWII or the period from WWII to 1985


  • A few senteces in the first paragraph of the New Coke section use present tense. If the studies that are mentioned are indeed recent, than they do not belong in that section, if not some kind of past tense should be used.


  • The sub-sections "Coca-Cola and local competitors" and "Coca-Cola and Islam" do not belong in the history section. The latter should probably be moved into the criticism section


  • The "Coca-Cola and local competitors" needs to be turned into prose.
Done--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 15:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]



  • The prase "is seen as a competitor" should be clarified (by whom, are these brands really competitors)


  • The "Coca-Cola formula" section should be expanded


  • The phrase "is said" in the "Franchised production model" and "Bottle and logo design" sections should also be clarified or replaced
  • "Bottle and logo design" should cover all notable bottle and can designs
  • The infromation about the SINALTRAINAL lawsuit should probably be moved into the criticism section.
  • It would be nice to see some statistics on sales, popularity, brand recognition, etc.

Those are just the first things I noticed, but there are plenty more. All in all the article only seems to cover three parts of the drink's history (early history, WWII, and the New Coke incident), but I'm sure there is more to say.--Carabinieri 19:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Case

In response to a request on my talk page, as a member of the soft drinks project I printed this out and went through it with a red pen.

To be brutally frank about this, I would not have passed this were I the GA reviewer, and I am strongly tempted to put it on GA review. There are some major problems here.

Here are just the general ones.

  • Lack of needed references, as noted here already. To give just one example: "In the United States, there is only one plant in New Jersey authorized by the Federal Government to grow the coca plant for Coca-Cola syrup manufacture." This cannot stand uncited.
  • Tendency to confuse history of the drink with the history of The Coca-Cola Company. The article wanders off-topic a lot as a result. This is evident right at the third graf of the intro, which goes off on a tangent dicussing the company's relationship with its bottlers. That deserves one sentence there at best. Stay focused on the sweet fizzy brown stuff.
  • Fragmentary presentation of information. There's a brief discussion of the bottles (which creates some confusion ... if the drink was first bottled in 1891, why wasn't it sold in bottles until 1894? This needs to be fixed or explained) in the history section, then a whole section "Bottle and logo design" several screens down in Production. Why not put all that history together in that latter section? And this isn't the only example.
  • Clunky prose."During the 1980s, Pepsi-Cola ran a series of television advertisements showing people participating in taste tests in which they expressed a preference for Pepsi over Coke" Even if we didn't already have an article on the Pepsi Challenge that could render most of this sentence unnecessary, it's still horribly wordy. "Although endorsed by the company, this version of events is not considered authoritative by many who cite its implausibility as difficult to believe". The implausibility is difficult to believe? Also, note the weasel words here.



And whatever the straw poll on the talk page said, the local competitors section is, to me, better off as a list (and probably a shorter one, as it's terribly crufty)

Not Done-Sorry alot of users put that they wanted the section as prose in their reviews/ or comments--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 20:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • "Coca-Cola has a policy of avoiding using children younger than the age of 12 in any of its advertising as a result of a lawsuit from the beginning of the 20th century that alleged that Coke's caffeine content was dangerous to children". I can't get through that classic run-on sentence without losing my breath.
Done--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 20:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • A veritable nest of weasels

It is possible that customers would not have noticed the change if it had been made secretly or gradually, and thus brand loyalty could have been maintained. Coca-Cola management was unprepared, however, for the nostalgic sentiments the drink aroused in the American public; some compared changing the Coke formula to rewriting the American Constitution.

These are all over the place.

  • Contradicts itself on a key point:

Although numerous court cases have been filed against The Coca-Cola Company since the 1920s, alleging that the acidity of the drink is dangerous, no evidence corroborating this claim has been found. Under normal conditions, scientific evidence indicates Coca-Cola's acidity causes no immediate harm.

Like most other colas, Coca-Cola contains phosphoric acid. One study has shown that this hastens bone loss, contributing to illnesses such as osteoporosis.

So first its acidity isn't a problem, then it is. This needs some explanation, to put it mildly.
  • The New Coke section. OK, I'm probably not the most impartial reviewer here because I've put so much time and effort into New Coke myself, but the article could use more than a nodding acquaintance with what's written there. Since they don't have much to say other than their connection to New Coke, I made the Mullins and Old Cola Drinkers' articles into redirects a long time ago. There are cited sources there aplenty for quite a few things in that section; feel free to borrow them for this article. The bit about Madagascar absolutely needs to be sourced; it sounds very UL-ish. And I don't see what semantic purpose is served by "volte-face" beyond confusing most readers.

    I can also say that reading the New Coke article closely would allow for writing some better history; you can't avoid mentioning Sergio Zyman's role in that.

  • Overall structural and organizational flaws. There are paragraphs within sections, and indeed sentences within some paragraphs, that I want to take by the hand and introduce to their neighbors, since they've obviously not yet met.

Enough. I would really love to see this article get back to featured status, but it's a very long way yet. It needs to be taken into the shop for a major overhaul. There is potential here, as there once was, but that's almost all there is right now.

Given the subject's overreaching importance within the WikiProject and indeed within the modern world, I think it needs a lot of daughter articles spun off. History of Coca-Cola should be made a real article instead of a redirect, and we could have Advertising of Coca-Cola and Coca-Cola Bottle as well. There's just way too much here for one article to embrace. But that doesn't mean the one article can't be a good or featured one.

For research, I heartily recommend not only the Prendergast book already cited a few times (probably the best history of Coke), but the Constance Hays and Tom Oliver volumes cited extensively at New Coke.

I'll see what I can do in the immediate future regarding the more specific and minor things on my printout. Daniel Case 05:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]



==

Headline text

New Coke Section

Much of this is unreferenced - seeing as claims are made that one person told another person something, there should be a citable reference. People are quoted, a lawsuit is claimed to have been filed -- better cite references for all of this. Squamate 14:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC) ==[reply]

Rainham, London

I nominated this page for review because I have made a big contribution to the article’s content, and I would like it to achieve at least good article status. I nominated it for good article status on 28th December 2006, and although it got some comments, I feel there is still room for improvement in the article. I would really like to achieve at least good article status, if not featured article. Thank you. Max Naylor 12:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roman-Spartan War

Previous peer review

I just withdrew the article's FA and I want some advice and to see what can be done to improve the article before I re nominated it in the future. Kyriakos 02:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Kirill Lokshin

Well, at this point, the most sensible thing would probably be to focus on the objections raised during the FAC. The chief ones seem to be:

  • Sources: adding citations to modern secondary works shouldn't be too difficult; ideally, there ought to be enough to stave off any questions of over-reliance on ancient primary sources.
  • Lead: this could, admittedly, be reworked quite a bit; it seems to have moved away from attempting to summarize the article and goes off on tangents about Nabis's title and such.
I remove the comments about Nabis' title and put them in the notes section.
  • Prose: the writing style is probably the most subjective thing here. The only thing I can really suggest would be to try and find a few fresh editors to give the article some copyediting.

Hope that helps! Kirill Lokshin 05:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou

Per Kirill on the sources. I think the most important thing in this article is now further and more thorough research based on both primary (in case, you have missed any - something I do not believe) and (most importantly) secondary sources. This is I believe the main problem that impeded FA promotion.

The prose looked and looks to me fine. It has been copy-edited by an excellent copy-editor, and it has been well worked by the main editor. Maybe, a second addition external copy-editing wouldn't hurt. In some of my articles, I have asked the assistance of more than one copy-editors.

More photos incoroporated in the article (not just "external photos") would help the article to "show" better. It is not the most important thing, but it definitely matters.

I promise I'll soon read the article once again in detail, but I really think (and I agree on that with Kirill) that what it really needs now is "fresh eyes", which will feed it with "fresh nurture": fresh ideas and fresh conceptions. The article is definitely on the right track, but the FAC reviewers seemed to believe that it lacked the "spark" a FA has to have.--Yannismarou 19:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sometimes the prose gets "choppy". See here for instance: "Nabis built new ships and besieged Gythium in 192 BC with a navy and an army. The Achean's sent an envoy to Rome with a request for help.[8] In response the Senate sent the praetor Atilius with a fleet to repel Nabis' attacks as well as an embassy headed by Flaminius.[8] The Achean's themselves under Philopoemon headed with their troops towards Gythium to try and relieve the city. The Achean fleet under Tiso seems to have been in a very bad shape as reportedly the flagship was so unseaworthy that it fell apart at the first assault." I think you should go from one event to the other, from one sentence to the other more "smoothly". And I think it is the "Acheans"; not the "Achean's".
  • Prose problem again: "The Roman's however did not strip Nabis of his power. His allegiance was assured with five hostages, amongst them his son Armenas.[32] However, the exiles were not restored to the city, but their Spartan wives, who had been remarried to former helots, were allowed to leave and rejoin their husbands.[32] The Roman's however did not strip Nabis of his rule." Repetition of the same forms of expression. And again: why "Roman's" and not "Romans"? Am I missing something here? I am not anymore sure, and, therefore, I did not correct here. I then see "his force's". Isn't it "his forces"?
  • Mixing styles that Piotrus points out in the references is a problem that can be easily be resolved: either adopt a common numbering ([1][2] etc.) for all your notes with no exception either divide the notes in "notes" and "citations", as I like to do (and Kirill doesn't!). It is up to you. Maybe a single numbering in a single "notes" section is the best solution for this particular article.--Yannismarou 09:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus

A map of troop movements would be invaluable. There seem to be some confusion between notes (two systems) and references, please streamline.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would any one be able to make a map about the troop movement? Kyriakos 20:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanatosimii

I haven't looked at it yet but I plan on giving it a thorough going over tomorrow. Do you want copyedit/prose concerns adressed, or were the objections that lead to your withdrawl more content oriented? Thanatosimii 05:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The big problem is and was the prose. Wandalstouring 01:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby union

Think needs another peer review so that the project members can decide what needs to be done to get this article up to Featured Article standard. - Shudda talk 04:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even just by scanning it I can tell it need a heck of a lot more references.Buc 11:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it need "a heck of a lot more references" just for the sake of it? A great deal of the article discusses the rules of the game. In so doing, it references the official rules of the game. There are no other more appopriate references. Sometimes the citation mania in this place makes my head spin. As if multiple citations is the only proof of quality. --Mat Hardy (Affentitten) 02:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The biggest problem is confusion, there has been a peer review or two in the past, and some people have complained that the article does is not coherant enough for the average person. I suggest breaking off Game laws and methods (except Players and officials and Playing field) into Game laws and methods of rugby union, and then writing a shorter more succinct overview of the Game laws and methods that everyone can understand, At present there are a million subsections. See this comment from an FAC.
  • The article also needs better use of images and their descriptions.
  • Also, merge Attire into Equipment.
  • Merge Possible alterations to the laws into Game laws and methods.
  • History needs re-writing, which I have outlined on the talk page.
  • Major international tournaments should be turned into one section such as "Notable competitions" to include club-regions etc.
  • Rugby coaching can be mentioned in Game laws and methods.
  • External links is too long.
  • Basically I propose to massively shorten the article to make it clearer and neater. Cvene64 04:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Doubt

I've been working on rewriting and referencing much of the article, but it could still use some work. It'd be especially nice for someone to check any POV that I may have introduced or suggest ways that the article could be expanded/reformatted. —ShadowHalo 11:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonably solid article. I assume that you are considering taking it WP:FAC. Before you do, there are some image problems here. The gallery of album covers should go per Wikipedia:Fair use criteria. Image:Nd band shot.jpg is improperly sourced -- "rebelwaltz.com" is unlikely to be the copyright holder, and there is no indication of any "implicit license to redistribute". Someone needs to invest some time tracking down images of the band and sending out some Wikipedia:Boilerplate requests for permission to get some correctly licensed images for the article. On the other hand, most band pages heading for WP:FAC include some short song samples, so you should look into creating some with proper fair use rationales. The "In popular culture" section is, well, trivial and list-formatted. The television appearances should probably just be deleted, while the song references could be worked into the text under "Mainstream success". Check your text; "...highly anticipated follow-up..." is cliched marketing-speak. Lose the inlined external link to Invincible Overlord. Nothing else jumped out at me. Hope the above helps. Jkelly 22:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not looking at WP:FAC yet. Right now, it needs to get to WP:GA status. When you say "correctly licensed", do you mean that an image that can be verified as being promotional is needed or that a free image is needed? Also, I can create some song samples (and have for some of the song/album pages), but where do you recommend that they be added? As it stands, the article doesn't seem long enough to justify a box for several albums, each containing multiple songs, and added at the end of the article is discouraged per Wikipedia:Music samples. I've moved three of the pop culture references to the article and deleted the rest of it, and I made the last two changes. Thanks for all your help so far. —ShadowHalo 23:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it should pass Wikipedia:Good articles standards. It's well-sourced and well-written. Jkelly 00:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Based on your comment, I've nominated it at WP:GAN. —ShadowHalo 00:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • Consider removing links that add little to the article or that have been repeated in close proximity to other links to the same article, as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and WP:CONTEXT.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.[?]
  • Avoid using contractions like: Don't.
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.

Paterson NJ

Editors, admins, Please leave your comments and feedback for this article here. Thank you --Javierbaires1 03:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Javierbaires1[reply]

It's a decent start. Here's a few comments that I hope are of some use:
  • The introduction is a tad too short. It should serve as a summary of the entire article.
  • In my browser the Paterson neighborhoods template is colliding with the second image, messing up the layout.
  • "The City's Neighborhoods" section could do with a map showing the layout of the neighborhoods relative to each other.
  • "The Great Falls of the Passaic River in Paterson, which are the second-highest large-volume falls on the East Coast of the United States." Isn't "falls" singular in this usage? The "are" looks odd to me.
  • There is a severe paucity of citations in the article. (Particularly assertions such as "Paterson ... became the cradle of the industrial revolution in America.") For a heuristic, I'd recommend about one per paragraph.
  • Do you have any images for the History section? It could use one or two, or possibly the addition of sub-sections.
  • The geography section is very short. Per the FA'd Ann Arbor, Michigan article, it could use a paragraph or two on the climate. Also, by comparison, the Paterson page is missing a number of others sections, such as Economy and Culture. The Education section seems far too brief.
  • Would it make sense for the Diversity section to follow the Demographics section? In the Diversity section, how is diversity reflected in having multiple stores and restaurants? You could say the same about a shopping mall. ;-)
  • Sice => Since
  • If the page gets too long, you might consider moving "Famous Patersonians" to another page.
Thanks. — RJH (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Old Peer Review

Intelligent design

A controversial topic, and one, more than most, where WP:NPOV needs intelligence and care to apply - Undue Weight seems to be key: This is not an accepted scientific theory, and is not even a scientific theory, as numerous sources show. Despite this, I think we've managaed pretty well, and this deserves FA, I think, so what more needs done? Adam Cuerden talk 02:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam - Overall it looks like a very good and fair coverage of a controversial topic. It is obviously well sourced, and clearly a lot of work has gone into it. I have several comments, but they are all just reactions I had reading through. Feel free to ignore any of them if you have even the slightest reason to do so. Thanks.

  • Would it be possible to switch to a different referencing scheme, or make multiple references in a single footnote. I find the 7 footnotes after a sentence in the lead a bit distracting.
  • I find this sentence a little odd "It stands in opposition to conventional biological science, which relies on the scientific method to explain life through observable processes such as mutation and natural selection." In particular, I think may advocates of intelligent design would not take kindly to the suggestion that they aren't using the scientific method. Also, the "observable" tag seems a bit odd, since the biological explanation for the evolution of life relies on large scale speciation which (as I understand it) we have never observed
  • "Intelligent design in the late 20th century can be seen as a modern development of natural theology which seeks to change the basis of science and undermine evolution theory." Its not clear what you mean by "basis of science" here. Could this sentence be made more clear?
  • There is inconsistent capitalization of "god".
  • "Whether this was a genuine feature of the concept or just a posture taken to avoid alienating those who would separate religion from the teaching of science has been a matter of great debate between supporters and critics of intelligent design." I find the wording "genuine feature of the concept" a bit awkward. Could the sentence say something like "whether Christianity can be separated from ID..."?
  • "Critics of both intelligent design and the weak form of the anthropic principle argue that they are essentially a tautology; in their view, these arguments amount to the claim that life is able to exist because the universe is able to support life." I found this statement a bit jarring. The explication of the argument in the previous paragraph isn't on face a tautology. Perhaps another sentence explaining why the argument is a tautology?
  • While I thought the paragraph was helpful, I found the second paragraph in the Intelligent designer section a bit out of place. That section is meant, I presume, to explicate the concept of the intelligent designer, while the second paragraph is more of an objection to the view as a whole (not just this one part). Could it be moved somewhere else?
  • "Phillip E. Johnson stated that the goal of intelligent design is to cast creationism as a scientific concept." This sentence seems out of place with respect to the rest of that paragraph.
  • The separation (or lack thereof) between ID and Christianity reoccurs in several places. It seemed repetitive. Would there be a way to put it all in one place? (This might not be possible, I understand if not.)
  • "Natural science uses the scientific method to create a posteriori knowledge based on observation alone (sometimes called empirical science)." My complaint here is with the word "alone". This sounds like empiricism which has largely been abandoned because of apparently non-empirical standards being widely used in science. For instance, preference for unification or simplicity in scientific theories doesn't appear to have an empirical grounding. Methodological naturalism isn't the same as saying only use observation. It means something akin to: don't postulate supernatural entities.
  • "Furthermore, intelligent design is neither observable nor repeatable, which critics argue violates the scientific requirement of falsifiability." This is a bit inexact. "Intelligent design isn't repeatable or observable" is a bit weird. Of course its not repeatable or observable, it's a theory. The general theory of relativity isn't observable or repeatable either. I think what you mean to say is that ID doesn't entail an observable predictions and no repeatable experiments can verify it.
  • "This presents a demarcation problem, which in the philosophy of science is about how and where to draw the lines around science." This sentence is awkward, can it be made more clear?
  • The way you present the list of features of science makes it sound uncontroversial. I suspect it's not. Perhaps you could be more specific where it comes from, and say that this list includes the commonly cited features of scientific method.
  • "The debate over whether intelligent design produces new research, as any scientific field must, and has legitimately attempted to publish this research, is extremely heated." This sentence is a bit awkward too.

Again, a great article. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 04:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent design

Adam - Well done overall, though the introduction seems a little biased, i appreciate that your sources are equalized later on. You've obviously put a lot of effort into this. This is how i would re-word the second paragraph to smooth things over a little bit, and to remain as journalistic as possible:

The majority of scientific community views intelligent design as unscientific,[13] as pseudoscience[14] or as junk science.[17] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.[19] Theistic scientists who are members of the Intelligent Design Network argue that this too is a subjective stance for, "The assumption is inconsistent with evidence collected per the scientific method that the biological information processing systems and networks of life may be the product of intelligence." (http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/tenreas.PDF)

peace, maegan

University of Oklahoma

The is the 4th PR for this article. It's been awhile since the previous PR but I was going to try to get this FA if it is ready and would appreciate any and all feedback. Cool BlueLight my Fire! 00:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be on the look out for weasel words and peacock words: "By far, OU's most famous and storied athletic program is the football program", "a long and bitter rivalry", "This rivalry is often thought of as a contest of state pride". Pagrashtak 00:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 02:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This looks pretty good to me. A few comments though. I think the Academic profile section could be expanded some. For example rather have the grab bag of majors at the beginning of the section, there could be a longer discussion of each College which would discuss the range of majors offered by that school. Some indication should be given on the range of graduate programs as well. It would be a good thing to get a better idea of the range of sports the atheletic department competes in. At bare minimum a statement along the lines of "OU competes in X NCAA division IA men's sports and Y women's sports. Even better would be a complete list for both men and women, although space restrictions might preclude it. I think some mention should be made of the 47 game winning streak the football. There are four structures on campus that on the NRHP (Beta Theta Pi House, Bizzell Library, Casa Blanca (Alpha Chi Omega Sorority House), and Boyd House) perhaps these could be mentioned, although again space restrictions might preclude this. The second paragraph of the Norman Campus subsection of the Academic profile section starts oddly. "More OU-Norman students (37%) are in the College of Arts & Sciences." I'm not sure what this means. More than what? The Lloyd Noble Center is mentioned at least twice, without defining what it is. I'm not sure where would be the best place to define it would be but readers shouldn't have to leave the article to figure that its a basketball arena. The section on Student organizations starts off with
There are over 350 student organizations at Oklahoma. Focuses of these organizations range from ethnic to political, religious to special interests. For example, the College Republicans at OU has over 1,800 members, nearly 10% of the Norman campus undergraduate population. In addition, OU has around 20 organizations related to Christian ideals.
By focusing on these 21 out of 350 groups, it feels as if the article is trying to imply something without actually saying it. Either the paragraph should say what it implies (with proper referencing) or it should be dropped. (How large is the College Democrats, and why give percentages of undergraduates, are graduate students not allowed to join? Why the focus on Christian groups?) Most of these points are minor, and some are probably optional. The History section is quite good, as are the discussions of the libraries and the museums. I love the picture of Bizzell with the lightning. Dsmdgold 03:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow that was fast. Good work Dsmdgold 01:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center

This article was created as a valid content fork (note, not a POV fork) from 9/11 conspiracy theories where the related section had simply grown too long. It was born in controversy and was nominated twice in close succession for deletion. The editors who took it on since its survival have striven to render it wholly NPOV, and have also striven to remove, where the discussion of a hypothesis allows, any weasel words.

The overall objective since that time has been to create an article of sufficient quality that it could be nominated for Featured Article Status with a good chance of success.

Part of the challenge in editing the article has been to document the facts of the controlled demolition hypothesis without either seeming to validate the hypothesis or invalidating it. People have misunderstood the article at times and stated that its existence at all gives credence to the hypothesis.

All editors are interested in comments on all aspects of the article ranging through the whole gamut from style to the actuality of the NPOV and the position of neither endorsing the hypothesis nor refuting it, but simply documenting in a cited manner that facts about the hypothesis. The article is about the hypothesis, not about the collapse itself. Our objective to to have a robust and excellent article that withstands the test of time. Fiddle Faddle 13:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contributors to the review should be aware that there is now a new AfD running on the article currently. It was not unexpected since the article has been nominated for deletion twice before. This makes the receipt of review suggestions even more pressing. Fiddle Faddle 23:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do keep the comments coming. Looking at the AfD there is a pretty strong consensus currently in favour of keeping the article. I know an AfD tends to put people off spending time looking at things, but, unless things change substantially, it is likely that the article will survive. Fiddle Faddle 12:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article survived AfD. Interestingly the outcome was declared as "Turnip" which was translated to "Keep". Fiddle Faddle 00:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems fine over all, and I didn't see any major issues. In terms of length it may be a bit of overkill for what is, in reality, an improbable and rather paranoid concept. I do think that placing "official explanation" in double-quotes is questionable, as it implies a falsehood. Either it's official or it's not. Also I think this sentence is too suggestive and is in need of some neutrality: "Jones concentrates on the physical implausibility of the official explanation and on aspects of the collapses that seem easier to explain with controlled demolition." Thanks. — RJH (talk) 23:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. We're waiting a while until we implement suggestions, and will gather consensus before many of them. Fiddle Faddle 23:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with RJH about the quotations marks, they are not needed and they do imply the authors think the official eplanation is a falsehood. Johntex\talk 06:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, this is more complicated. This discussion is relevant to this matter and the quotation marks are there not because an editor wanted to imply falsehood but because some editors were unhappy with calling this explanation "official" (there were voices that it's rather a "mainstream" one, etc.). Anyways, I agree they better be removed. SalvNaut 09:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The quotation marks are removed, and struck through to indicate completion. RJH's other comment remains for consideration. I am adding it to the "ToDo List" on the article talk page. Fiddle Faddle 09:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence "Jones concentrates on the physical implausibility of the official explanation and on aspects of the collapses that seem easier to explain with controlled demolition." has been raised on the talk page for careful discussion. Fiddle Faddle 12:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This has now been edited and documented on the talk page. It is struck out (far) above to indicate completion Fiddle Faddle 14:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kesh comments

  • The Other Issues section of Criticism needs some work. At least four of the sentences start with "NIST" and all are very short. The section needs rewritten into stronger paragraphs. Also, I'm not sure why the Building Seven section below that has a bullet point in it. -- Kesh 18:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Added to the to do list. We will report back on completion Fiddle Faddle 19:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bullet point item complete, struck out to show completion. Wording remains for thought. Fiddle Faddle 19:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the referenced material is a series of YouTube videos. These are copyright violations, which is antithetical to Wikipedia's established goals. It would be best to find transcripts of those news reports and cite that, or another source entirely. -- Kesh 04:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That has concerned us, too. The issue is challenging. For example, one such video is the only shot we have been able to find which shows or purports to show the molten metal flowing from the building. We've been scratching our heads over this one. Thoughts on how this could be handled would be appreciated. The article is better for it, but Wikipedia is probably not. Fiddle Faddle 07:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the image itself is necessary from video, and I'm sure I've seen stills of it elsewhere. Again, copyright could be an issue with the stills. Best would be to find a written account of it and cite that. -- Kesh 17:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The difficult thing is that people seem to need to "see" (eg) a flow of molten metal with their own computer screen. It seems to me that the best of all outcomes is to seek a source that is correctly released, and, in the interim, to remove the links with an html comment inthe text to say what has been done Fiddle Faddle 20:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I don't see the video or photo as relevant. Probably best would be to link to a web site that has a photo, but it doesn't really apply. It's well established that the "molten metal" existed from photos and interviews, but what metal it was is the point of contention. That's not something that can be answered from a picture, so a photo wouldn't help. -- Kesh 20:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only added value a picture brings is the posisbility to see the colour. I take your point and have fed it in to the article's talk page. Fiddle Faddle 21:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first pass on commenting the potential copyright videos is complete (and struck out, above, to signify that) in that they have been removed. New citations have not yet been supplied. Item is on the talk page for further work if necessary, but the legality issue is now solved. Fiddle Faddle 22:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sthomson06 comments

  • Interesting article! One thing I would note is that grammar and phrasing are very important for "Featured Articles." I noticed a few phrases in the introduction that were awkward at best. Example: "The collapse of 7 World Trade Center (not hit by any plane)..." In this case, the interjection would flow much better if it was "which was not hit by a plane", or perhaps it should be removed entirely. The whole article should be examined for tone by a seasoned editor. -sthomson06 (Talk) 19:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point well made re the parenthesised phrase. I have added your comments to the to do list. Regarding the "Seasoned Editor" element, is there anyone you feel happy to nominate? Fiddle Faddle 19:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Parenthesised phrased now handled. Ref also moved to correct punctuation point. No striking out above because this is simply an example of an entire and large task Fiddle Faddle 19:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RedHillian comments

  • I'm impressed It's good article (ok, this comes from me as a n00b, but...) It seems to me to be a good article, NPOV and well written. I can't offer much beyond that, but I thought I'd throw in my words. (01:58, 6 January 2007, RedHillian)
Thanks for your encouragement. Fiddle Faddle 10:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Parham comments

  • The lead of the article is missing important information; for instance, it should identify the proponents of the theory. Also, the fact that this is a conspiracy theory, which is absolutely crucial information, should probably appear in the first sentence. That is just one example of an excessively sympathetic tone that I think would get this article in trouble at FAC. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A couple or more questions on this:
  • The opening sentence is "The controlled demolition hypothesis is the controversial proposition that the World Trade Center was not destroyed by the planes that crashed into it as part of the September 11th attacks, nor by the fires that followed, but by explosives or other devices planted in the buildings in advance." Is it simply the word "conspiracy" that you feel is absent, or do you find other issues with the sentence? I suspect we felt that the word was covered in the article title, but there is nothing against including it in the text in the lead
I have now added that element. struck out above to signifiy completion. Fiddle Faddle 10:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because there are so many proponents of the hypothesis, I'm thinking that the wording could be "major proponents of the CD Hypothesis include...", but would appreciate your comments.
Added to the lead paraghraph, and struck out above to signify completion Fiddle Faddle 20:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The tone: Part of the challenge of editing an article is that one can stand too close to it to be able to see what others see. The consensus of those who have worked on it is that it was rendered, so far, unbiased either way, and simply factual. You obviously see something different. Further examples would be appreciated, please. We may need to "tune in again" to get this right.
I or anther editor will add your comments to the "ToDo list" once we have a closer understanding of your comments. Fiddle Faddle 10:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your work, the lead in the current version of the article is much improved and does a better job summarizing the article. As far as the tone, I think that has also improved since I last looked. Tone-wise, the biggest obstacle to overcome is that the article is broken up into proponent and critic sections; it's difficult to take a neutral tone when you are only presenting the one side of an issue at a time.
As another question, what is up with the footnote on Bloomberg's comment at the end of the 'destruction of the crime scene' section? It doesn't appear to be a complete quote, but if it's not there's a lot of bad editorializing there. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reference looks very much like a careless edit. The ref tag is now completed. The tone element is being taken to the talk page. Fiddle Faddle 08:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gazpacho comments

  • Rebuttals should be close to the corresponding arguments, not in a ghetto near the bottom of the article.
  • Before introducing arguments for the hypothesis, the article should have
    • A brief description, in neutral terms, of what the 3 collapses looked like
    • A summary of the consensus explanation for the collapses.
    • A brief description of what happens in a controlled demolition.
  • The hypothesis is marginal and has no support among structural engineers. It should not be described as "controversial."

Gazpacho 01:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor note: the section you added (Engineering Consensus) is completely without citations. Yes, it is the accepted model, but we still need to verify that through citation. -- Kesh 02:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We do not currently agree that the description of the collapses or the engineering consensus have a place in this article, but see them as more for an article about the collapse. This article is about the hypothesis and refers explicitly to the collapse article. The same comment applies to that about a controlled demolition. That is well referenced as it stands. We have taken this to the talk page of the article.
We will look at the rebuttal proximity on the talk page and build consensus. Fiddle Faddle 08:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who's "we"? Gazpacho
Those of us who are working on the article?--Thomas Basboll 09:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probably more correctly, "those who have been working in this article long term." I'm sorry, my "we" looked elitist or cliquey. That was not intended. Gazpacho is also working within the article. Fiddle Faddle 10:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuttals task is complete, and struck out to signify completion. Fiddle Faddle 20:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO Comments

  • I think it would be great if all the references used the standardized citation templates. Not only does this clean up the way the references look, it makes it easy to adjust (at least I think). This might add a kb or two to the article size, but it makes it have a cleaner, more encyclopedic style...for quick link look at the templates here.--MONGO 12:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Absolute agreement with you here. It is on the To Do list. There seems to have been a sudden influx of editors who seem unfamiliar with the template set. Probably this will end up being the final task before nomination for Featured Article status. Fiddle Faddle 15:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't be dead set on trimming the article down to 32kbs either, as I have mentioned on the article talk page. Many featured articles are significantly longer than 32kbs.--MONGO 19:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matisyahu

The article has just undergone some fairly significant rewriting and improvement, I'd like some feedback as to other areas of the article that could be improved in the hopes of nominating it for good article status soon. Thanks for your input! -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 06:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments from Heaven's Wrath
    • References should be placed after punctuation (if there is any) and no space should be left after it. (See WP:FOOT.)
    • You might want to see about using citation templates. (See WP:REF.)
    • In the "TV and Radio appearances" section, the numbered list is confusing. I think it would be better as either bullets or you reorder the list by date. Example of second option below.
    • Also, I am not sure of the notability of the "TV and Radio appearances" section. It does not seem to important, but I am more concerned with the style with which it is presented.
    • Numbers between 0 and 10 are normally spelled out as words. I fixed one instance, but I think I saw another. Although do not spell the number if it is part of Top 5.
    • The "Music video" section should probably be expanded. Maybe you could discuss themes or styles of the videos. I think that section would benefit from some more information. Otherwise talk about the videos on the song's page, and remove that section from the article.
    • I did not get a chance to read the whole article, and I need to leave so I might be back.
– Heaven's Wrath   Talk  05:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aquinas College, Perth

Moon

Previous PR: Wikipedia:Peer review/Moon/archive1

This page is starting to shape up pretty nicely now, thanks to much work by Lunokhod and others. It has reached GA status, and should be ready for a FAC with some additional work. Could you suggest any changes that will bring this up to FA status? Thank you! — RJH (talk) 18:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aristotle's division of the world into the sublunar, changable world, and the world above it, that did not change, was so prominent in ancient and medieval accounts of the universe that I think that it should probably be mentioned. The part on mythology is a little weak, as well. Goldfritha 01:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I've added Aristotle myself. Goldfritha 01:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. — RJH (talk) 15:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I saw this so late, and now I only have time to make some suggestions to the lead, but here they are. In general a lot of the lead is a bit verbose with minor factoids, which makes it longer and more confusing than it needs to be.
  1. The average distance from the Earth to the Moon is 384,399 kilometres (238,854 miles), which is about 30 times the diameter of the Earth. could be simplified to On average, the Moon is 384,399 kilometers (238,854 miles) from the Earth.
  2. At this distance, it takes sunlight reflected from the lunar surface approximately 1.3 seconds to reach Earth. It's interesting but doesn't tell us anything about the Moon.
  3. The Moon's diameter is 3,474 kilometres (2,159 miles),[1] which is about 3.7 times smaller than the Earth, making it the Solar System's fifth largest moon, both by diameter and mass, ranking behind Ganymede, Titan, Callisto, and Io. Oi. Four ideas in five phrases and only one sentence. Suggestion: The Moon is about one-third the size of the Earth and has a diameter of 3,474 kilometres (2,159 miles). It is the fifth largest moon in the solar system behind Ganymede, Titan, Callisto, and Io.
  4. The gravitational attraction of the Moon is responsible for the tides on Earth. This doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the paragraph, which is discussing the Moon's physical characteristics.
  5. The Soviet Union's (USSR) Luna program was the first to reach the Moon with unmanned spacecraft. Unnecessary because the next two sentences tell us the same thing but in more detail.
  6. The United States' Apollo program achieved the first (and only) manned missions to the Moon. Same thing here.
  7. The first manned mission to orbit the Moon was Apollo 8 in 1968, and the first people to land and walk on the Moon came aboard Apollo 11 in 1969. The wording of the second phrase is a bit confusing (it seems like they're "climbing aboard Apollo 11", rather than going to the moon on Apollo 11).
  8. Half of the lead is about human exploration of the moon, which seems out of proportion with the main part of the article. And there is no mention of the moon's geology, surface features, or formation, which comprise a large portion of the article. Perhaps it could be reworked to be a more representative overview.
I'll try to get around to reading the rest of the article with some more suggestions soon. Good luck!--Will.i.am 03:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

College of the Holy Cross

This week I'm working on a deeper history, better sports section, and update to the notable alumni section.

I guess I should wait till then, but I'd really like some feedback now since I want to keep going in right direction and I see how helpful everyone is!

Anyway biggest issues are:

1. Copy editing and style (I followed outline for UNIVERSITIES but would love any tips/advice on how to make better than is) 2. Finding pictures and understanding how to use (All I get so far is that anything shot before 1923 is A-OK to use within fair use guidelines) 3. Citing sources (Have we done it right??)

If you see anything else let me or the discussion page know.

Thanks Destinvil 09:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite impressed, nice work! I'm not an expert on style guidelines, but since there doesn't seem to be a response here I'll do my best. I'd especially really like to see images of campus, architecture, sports, famous alumni, or anything. Having someone take and make available free-use (GFDL/etc) images is far preferable to trying to find fair-use images (I am not a copyright expert/etc). Checking images on (for example) MIT or University of California, Berkeley shows that this is the case for most of their images. Perhaps there is someone in the area who could do this? I'm also not a citation expert, but I would like to see book titles, at the very least, in the reference section for non-web sources (not just "last name, year, link to Amazon"). There is quite possibly another person named Kuzniewski who published something in 1999. WP:REF gives lots of discretion though. As less important, extremely tedious quibbles: adding a "Retrieved on" (see WP:REF) to web references would be ideal if extremely tedious. Also, the date these references were created is present on at least some of the originals, that could be parenthesized. As a last tiny quibble, the "Lift up the Cross" paragraph is exactly duplicated in the Background and Recent History sections; I don't know if that's intentional. It's really quite good, my biggest issue is with the lack of pictures. skip (t / c) 14:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that help. I'll definitely check on those tips

1. I didnt know it repeated, haha. I can delete that easily. 2. I didnt know the 'retrieve' issue but it makes sense after reading that section. I'll try to get on that. 3. We can definitely look around for friends with pictures or on personal web pages.Destinvil 22:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, great work so far on the article. The new picture looks great, but it is not public domain. The source you provided lists it as licensed under CC by-nc-sa. This seems okay, but the image use policy says that non-commercial use only images aren't acceptable, even CC nc. I'm really not a copyright nut, but it's certainly going to come up eventually. It's a shame - the picture is quite good. By the way, is it Fenwick (per the filename) or Kane (per the caption) Hall? skip (t / c) 05:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I re-did the copyright since I actually picked wrong heading for it so it should be fine now. It's O'Kane Hall but I named wrong on my pictures list. I have a couple more public campus picks to upload at later time. Thanks againDestinvil 08:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Who

The Whole thing to be reviewed if possible, please list the strengths and weaknesses, thanks. Dennis Kussinich 08 00:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't read the article, so there's maybe problems with the prose, but I found some things to fix:
  • Fix the subsections, make an "history" section and add the first five sections there.
  • In the discography section, remove the covers of the albums and make a simple list or maybe a table, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works).
  • All the quotes in the "quotes" sections needs a reference.
  • Use the Template:cite web instead of those links.
  • If a date doesn't include month and day, don't link anything, for example: "...Live at Leeds album, on which, recently, the entire 1970 concert is now..." 1970 shouldn't be linked.
  • Remove the see also section, incorporate the link in the body of the article.
  • Remove most of the external links. See Wikipedia:External links.
  • The article is way too long (62 kb), you need to move the "performance" and "in the studio" sections to new articles.
Ok, that's it. If something is not clear, ask on my talk page or here, someone will answer. Cheers. No-Bullet (Talk • Contribs) 02:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yankee Hotel Foxtrot

I would like some feedback on how to better develop this article. Any tips (such as prose, content recommendations) on how to improve this article to possibly FA status would be greatly appreciated. Teemu08 22:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, — WiseKwai 23:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Alright, I've incorporated what I can from the automated program, and I plan on adding a section about album content before I submit this to FAC. I'd love to hear some more suggestions if they're out there. Teemu08 06:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of guest stars on The Simpsons

Hi, I'm mainly interested in knowing how I can improve this article so that it can make another run at FL status. There is no complete official source, and it has been suggesting that I delete everyone off the list that is not mentioned at the official website, which would be about half the list, which is something I am unwilling to do. Anyway, any opinions on how to improve the article are welcome! -- Scorpion 04:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lethbridge

old Peer Review

2005 Texas Longhorn football team

Numerous editors have contributed to this article to help it become one of the best and most thorough college-football related articles on Wikipedia. I believe it meets the criteria to be a Featured Article and I am requesting a peer review prior to submission for FA consideration.

This article previously had a peer reveiew for GA and some valid questions were raised. I believe I have addressed all of those by changes to the article or by explanation on the article's talk page. All other questions that have arisen on the Talk page have been addressed. I have also run the semi-automated peer review script to look for potential problems. I have decided to go for FA status rather than another attempt at GA status because the GA process does not seem as suitable for longer articles.

The article is very well referenced, with 121 in-line sources, all of them meeting WP:V and WP:RS. It has undergone a thorough copyedit to look for any spelling, punctuation, formatting, or other problems. Care has been taken to include links to football terms that may be confusing to the non-football fan.

In following the Oklahoma Sooners nomination, I see that there were some objections raised to what was perceived as an overly-positive tone of the article. I am not sure I agree with that comment about the OU article, but I have taken care to review this article to ensure that every positive claim made about the 2005 UT team is attributed to a reliable source.

Another thing that may arise is the question of length. It is difficult to be complete and still concise, especially while taking the time to provide background for a reader who may be less than familiar with the subject matter. Knowing that summary-style is favored for long articles, I did break out most of the content on the 2006 Rose Bowl into its own article. I look forward to further suggestions as to whether any other sections should be broken out or if the length is now appropriate for the subject matter.

I am eager to hear the opinions of other editors on these points, and any others that are raised. I look forward to your thoughts. Johntex\talk 00:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RockMFR

  • A few things I immediately noticed- the paragraph beginning with "The official website of UT football" is entirely useless trivia, should be cut out. In the Ohio State section, it says "two storied programs" - cut out "storied" as it is just fluff. That particular line also does not need three references. --- RockMFR 19:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your review.
For the first comment, I included that paragraph because I believe it is interesting that the UT football program designed a logo specifically to commemorate the win. That is why the description of the logo is included. Johntex\talk 03:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the second comment, I am mindful that some people who read this article may not be that familiar with college football. Therefore, I felt is was important to point out that UT and OSU are often considered to be among the sports best programs. This knowledge is important to an understanding of why it was a big deal that the two teams faced off against each other. The references cited support the use of the term "storied" to describe the two programs. Johntex\talk 03:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia

  • Why isn't this peer review linked from the talk page? That would make it easier for editors to find their way back here. I was well into typing out a very long list of things that needed to be addressed in your footnotes/references, when I hit an unmarked PDF in a footnote that killed my computer, so I lost everything - that's why you're supposed to identify PDFs :-) So, all I can say is that there are numerous errors in your footnotes - some of the links are dead (you can try to find them in the internet archive), some of them don't have publisher or publication date, some of them have no information at all (I recall something about ESPN that gave no other information and no article link), and some use inconsistent format (most have author last name first, some don't). There was more, but I can't remember it all - so, pls check all your references, and please identify PDFs. Readable prose size of your article is 27KB; there shouldn't be any size objections. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you SandyGeorgia, for your excellent proof-reading and for the improvements you have made to the article. I have now linked this peer review from the article talk page. I will go through the references again for consistency and completeness. Johntex\talk 03:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another issue is to figure out how to deal with the copyright violations on MackBrownFootball - they use PDF copies of copyrighted media stories, which is a no-no. You should attempt to locate the original sources, to avoid copyvio issues. Per WP:EL, Wikipedia shouldn't link to sites that violate copyright. A number of the sources I looked at on MackBrownFootball were PDF copies of newspaper articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with this comment. There is no evidence that MackBrownFootball is violating any copyright. To the contrary, I think it is best to assume good faith and proceed on the understanding that they have permission to host these article reprints. It is very normal for athletic programs to seek and receive permission to host such articles. Therefore, they are not a copyright violation and there is no problem under Wikipedia policy to link to that website. I have no objection if someone wants to search for the original articles elsewhere, but my experience has been that the UT website tends to keep these articles available at the same URL for far longer than most newspapers. Therefore, I don't think it is very productive to look for alternate links. Johntex\talk 03:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The final paragraph needs a copy edit - I didn't review the other prose - it has missing punctuation and sentence fragments:
    • Yince Young's departure set up a competition between Colt McCoy and Jevan Snead to see who would lead the 2006 Texas Longhorn football team. McCoy won the starting job and threw a freshman-record 27 touchdowns This touchdown pass was McCoy's 27th touchdown pass of the season. That tied the national record for touchdown passes by a freshman. in route to a 10-3 season for the Longhorns in 2006. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I wrote this when I was up too late at night. I am not sure this paragraph belongs, since it is about the 2006 program. My initial thinking is that including something who replaced Vince Young and what the 2006 result was provides some longer-term view of the team. I will correct the paragraph and leave it in for now, pending other commetns. Johntex\talk 03:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CJC47

Nice article, here are my criticisms:

  1. Too many citations in some places. I realize the goal of being well sourced, but statements like "This meeting was also the first-ever match-up between the two storied programs" don't eally need 3 citations. Pick the most important one.
  2. The game capsules need to be more on point. The OSU capsule doesn't even talk about what happened in the game, the Rice capsule, has one line. Both have a paragraph or more of pregame notes. Baylor and Kansas need to be expanded, as does the Big 12.
  3. I think it is missing something about Mack Brown getting the big game monkey off his back against Oklahoma and by winnning the title.
  4. Preseason needs to be expanded... talk about what was going on in CFB at the time USC is the big dog, but was TX the favorite to be there? etc...
Thank you very much for reviewing the article and for your feedback.
I would like to disagree only with your first point. I'm a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check and our goal is for each citable fact in Wikipedia to have multiple citations. This way, if one source becomes unavailable or is called into question, there is always another source to back it up. Even though that fact may seem simple, the phrase "storied programs" has been questioned so multiple sources seemed prudent. I wonder if other people might want to lend their opinion about this point?
I thank your other points are very fair and good. I will work on them.
Thank you again for your help. Johntex\talk 03:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've now put some work into addressing criticisms 3 and 4. (Please let me know if it still needs work) I'll be back to work on number 2. Johntex\talk 04:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have now addressed all these points, excpet number 2. I am still working on expanding the game summaries. Johntex\talk 08:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update - I have now made significant expansions to the first 3 game summaries (Louisiana Lafayette, Ohio State, and Rice). I will continue to work my way through each game section with expansions. Johntex\talk 05:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update - Missouri and OU now expanded. Johntex\talk 08:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update - I expanded the game summaries but that led to a long article. Consequently, I am splittong some of the informaiton off into sub-articles per WP:SUMMARY. Johntex\talk 20:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VegaDark

  • "With 5 rushing TDs scored in the Rose Bowl, Texas has 55 for the season, setting a new single-season record (52; 1969 and 1970)." School record or NCAA record?
  • "The 2005 Texas team set a new single-season total yards record with 6,657, passing the 2003 team (5,709)." Once again, school record or NCAA record?
  • Image:UT Longhorn logo with Texas.gif needs a fair use rationale. All of the current images used that have fair use rationales need to say "I believe this is fair use in the 2005 Texas Longhorn football team article because..." it has to specifically say what article(s) it is believed to be fair use in.
  • It's scout.com, not scouts.com, for when you mention that the game is considered a classic in the opening few paragraphs
  • Is the Big 12 conference template really necessary at the bottom of the page? It is my understanding that if the page isn't linked in the template, then the template shouldn't be there. That template should really only be on the university and athletics pages for each school, aka 24 pages total. All facilities, individual teams, etc. can still be in the Big 12 conference category, but it doesn't need that template.
Hi VegaDark, these are all excellent points. I will put time into fixing them this weekend. Thank you very much for taking the time to review the article. Best, Johntex\talk 06:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have now addressed all these points. Johntex\talk 08:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caknuck

  1. The "List of accomplishments" section has several GLARING omissions... No mention of the four players who were named to the AP All-American team. No mention of Vince Young winning the Davey O'Brien Award or the Maxwell Award. No mention of Michael Huff winning the Jim Thorpe Award.
  2. The final paragraph of the intro lists the six Longhorns selected in the 2006 NFL Draft. They area again listed in "After the season" section. I'd suggest mentioning that six were picked in the intro, but waiting until the end to name them. After all, that's where the cites are.
  3. Devoting a whole paragraph to the UT Web site championship logo is WAY overboard and may be deem crufty. I doubt it will be viewed as "encyclopedic" during a FA review.
  4. The article mentions Young declaring for the draft, but fails to note that he had previously stated his intention to return for a senior year (most notably on The Tonight Show). Warrants mention.
  5. Further to what VegaDark mentioned about the images... We cannot use the magazine covers in this article. Per the copyright disclaimer, they can only be used in articles about the magazine, not about the person (or team) depicted thereon. Plus, the Texas Football cover image has the incorrect copyright tag.
  6. The Big 12 Championship section mentions the victory gave the Horns a "...fourth consensus national championship in football." This is wrong. The consensus championship wasn't awarded until after the BCS title game. After the Big 12 title game, Texas was still ranked second.
  7. Finally, I suggest amending the schedule table to indicate which games were conference games.
Let me know if you'd like additional feedback. Caknuck 23:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Caknuck, thank you very much for reviewing the article. I will be working to address all your points except your point number 5. Fair use images are not limited only to articles about the image. This is a common misconception. The policy states "...specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text". They are therefore not limited exclusively to an article about the magazine. Instead, they are limited to articles OR sections of articles where the image is specifically discussed. The entire article does not have to be about the image or the magazine.
For an example of this, please see Battle of Iwo Jima. The whole article is not about the flag-raising picture. The whole article is not even about the flag raising event. Never-the-less, we can justify using the flag-raising image in the article. We also have fair-use justifications provided for using this one image on several other articles as well.
In the case of the UT article, all the images are specifically discussed in the article. Therefore, they can all qualify under fair use. Johntex\talk 06:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, regarding point 3, I am listening for other comments on this. You are the second person to say it should go, but I still think it adds something to the article. Pehaps the use of the capitalization (which is found in the original) is making this paragraph stand out non-proporitonaly. I will edit that, but I am not deleting the paragraph at this time. If more people say they don't like it, it will be easy enough to delete later. Johntex\talk 08:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have now addressed or spoken to all your points. Please let me know if you notice any other areas for improvement. Thanks, Johntex\talk 08:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4u1e

I've already commented on the length of the article on the talk page, but I had one other semi-related point to make and this seems to be the best place to do it. I don't know that there's a guideline for this anywhere, but the article is seriously overreferenced. Which is a pleasant surprise in a way, and certainly better than being under-referenced, but brings its own problems.

To take an example, see the paragraph which begins: "Ohio State recovered three turnovers in Texas territory..." (in the Ohio State section). The second sentence "The five field goals by Josh Huston tied an Ohio State school and stadium record." has three references, only one of which (52) is needed to support the point being made. The next sentence "He now shares the record with Mike Nugent (at North Carolina State, September 19, 2004) and Bob Atha (vs. Indiana, 24 October 1981 in Ohio Stadium)" has two references (41 & 43), but can be covered entirely by 41 alone, already used in the previous sentence. I suggest the five references used for those two sentences can be replaced by using 52 at the end of sentence two and 41 at the end of sentence three. Ref 43 covers both sentence one and sentence four of the para, so why not just put it at the end to support the whole para? That way you still have three refs supporting the whole para, but using only three footnotes instead of the current seven. I don't think this would make the original information any less easy to find, in fact it might be easier because the direction to the most relevant reference is clearer.

In addition to more precise direction of readers to the most relevant reference, there is also a (minor) saving in overall article length (not relevant in terms of the guidelines, but it would help a little for those on dial up for whom a 150kb article can be slow to load). Finally, footnote numbers can be intrusive for some readers, and definitely more so where there are several in a row. I suggest this approach can usefully be applied throughout the article.

I note the point made above about each citable fact having multiple citations. What can I say? I think this is wrong. If your source is a reliable one and the fact is non-controversial, what is the value in doing this? The requirement for citations at present only actually requires that "Precise attribution is required for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged.". Of course if it is controversial, then multiple sources are needed to give the various views, but much of what is referenced in this article is not controversial.

It's a good, thorough article, but I feel it's (mildly) damaged by the referencing approach used. Please take this as constructively meant criticism, I know how much work goes into putting together such a comprehensive article. Cheers. 4u1e 05:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • I thank you very much for reviewing the article and for discussing the references. I still believe mutliple references are useful and I would be very much opposed to removing any of them. I appreciate that they add a little length to the article. I think that is a small price to pay for good sourcing. I appreciate that some people may see multiple footnotes as ugly clutter (I do not - I see them as beautiful reminders that the article is well sourced). To me, the main points are:
  1. One source is not ideal. I have seen over and over again where someone questions a source, for whatever reason.
  2. A single source can be harder to verify. Web links change. Books go out of print. Etc. Having more than one source helps mitigate the risk of this.
  3. It is impossible to know ahead of time what might be challenged. There are so many different ways of looking at the world, someone can dispute almost anything. The easiest time to find and add sources is when working on the article in the first place. It is far harder to go and find them if a dispute comes up.
  4. Adding multiple sources gives the reader that many more places to go look if they want to learn more about the topic than what we have included.
  5. Wikipedia policies evolve. It used to be that articles existed quite happily with zero or few sources. Happily, this is changing. Articles now get challenged if the sourcing is too weak. This will probably continue to evolve. What may be adequate today may not pass muster tomorrow. Look at how many FA's get demoted not because the article got worse but because the standards got higher. I would like to know that an article can survive for 100 years and have us be proud of it the whole time.
  6. Also, 100 years from now - it may be that none of the original sources are still available. At least at that point the reader can know we once had 3 sources. Who knows, it could be useful informaiton for the archealogical/anthropologist/sociologist of the future just to see what sources we used.
  7. Serious research works, do use multiple footnotes, where mutliple sources support the same fact.
  8. One of the biggest complaints about Wikipedia is that it is under-referenced. Let's start changing that. If we somehow could get a reputation for being incredibly well referenced, wouldn't that be wonderful?
Thanks again for taking the time to review the article. I appreciate your criticisms, even though I do not agree with them. Johntex\talk 22:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to consider my points seriously. My only response to your arguments is that my suggestions for that paragraph don't remove any of the sources used, they just place them more accurately in relation to what they are being used to support, beneficial in itself and with an incidental benefit in (slightly!) shorter articles and a less distracting reading experience. I think that defuses almost all of your points (perhaps not 8). Perhaps over-referenced was the wrong phrase - what I mean is over-footnoted. Cheers. 4u1e 06:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. If we combine multiple footnotes into one, how would we handle a footnote that is used more than one time? Would it get incorporated into multiple footnotes? For instance, what if we have:
Sentence 1.[1][2][4]
Sentence 2.[1]
Sentence 3.[2][5][6]
Sentence 4.[7]
Sentence 5.[6]
Sentence 6.[7]
Would we now change this to:
Sentence 1.[1]{incorporates the old [1][2][4]}
Sentence 2.[2]{incorpoares the old reference [1]}
Sentence 3.[3]{incorporates the old [2][5][6]}
Sentence 4.[4]{incorporates the old [7]}
Sentence 5.[5]{incorporates the old [6]}
Sentence 6.[4]
Is that the way it would work? Do you know if your suggested format is already in use and if it is already an accepted practice? Thanks! Johntex\talk 20:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the actual degree of footnoting is more of a personal preference. You're probably fairly familiar with my personal approach (which is obviously the best one!) after reviewing BT19, see Brabham for a longer article on the same lines (which probably need revising, cos I've re-written much of the text). I'm in a slightly different situation to you, in that working on older stuff I can usually work from books. What I try (nearly always fail) to do is find single reference (one or two pages) that covers all the facts in one paragraph in the article and just put one footnote at the end. If I can't find a page that covers the whole para, I'll add the smallest number of other footnotes to other refs at the appropriate points. Where there are several points of view, or I'm trying to establish a general belief, I may use several refs in one footnote, but I try to avoid it, because it's lengthy. See footnote 13 to Brabham. For the example para I picked through above, there don't seem to be many places where several references are needed - in most cases one of the several references given would cover the points being made, still sticking to one ref per footnote. When I said you wouldn't lose any footnotes, what I meant was that as it happens, to cover all of the points made in that sentence, you still need all the refs you currently use, but you probably only need to footnote each of them once. Does that make sense? Is my approach the right one? Dunno - like you I've gotten an article to FA, so it can't be that bad, but I wouldn't dream of pushing it on others! 4u1e 16:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article promoted to FA

The article was promoted to FA on September 8 2007. Therefore, I think we can close this peer review. If you have other suggestions for improving the article, please see: Talk:2005 Texas Longhorn football team. Thanks to everyone for your help with the article! Johntex\talk 05:40, September 9 2007 (UTC)

Keggy the Keg

Peer review was suggested by M3tal H3ad when this article failed its first nomination for Good Article status (I addressed the concerns, and renominated it). I guess the only real problem with the article is that it's rather short, but I would like to hear any suggestions. Thanks. Dylan 02:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Expand section #1 on context and creation extending the timeline and adding quotes from proponents and opponents of Keggy. May the opponents be washed forever away by the great flow valve of the sky. Dharp66 22:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)Dharp66[reply]

Joyce Kilmer

I've done a lot of work to bring this article from stub to where it is now. (It was just named a Good Article today, only a mere 1 hour and 56 minutes after I nominated it.) I'd like to improve it, as it's always possible to improve things, and I wonder if this is worthy for inclusion among the Featured Articles. Thank you in advance for comments, suggestions and efforts in this regard. —ExplorerCDT 00:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overall a very interesting article and obviously a lot of work has gone into it. I did some copyedits on this, split the lead into two paragraphs, and added the {{fact}} tag in a few places where FAC will ask for references. I have some suggestions / questions, as follows:

    G. K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc are mentioned in the Lead but not in the body of the article - the Lead should not have anything that is not in the body and this needs a ref. Since Kilmer died in 1918, any photo of him is now a free image, and I would add more photos to the article (the one in the infobox is very nice). FAC will probably point out that quotations are not to be in italics. The quotation "...some of the poems in it, those inspired by genuine love, are not things of which to be ashamed, and you, understanding, would not be offended by the others." needs a ref and needs to be put into context (to whom is it addressed - Kilmer's wife?). Some of the paragraphs are very short (one or two sentences) and may be better somehow combined with other paragraphs.

    In some places dates / years are repeated too much - I tried to fix a few of these (i.e. ...in 1916, the following year... then (1917) x 3). The date of death also seems to be repeated twice in close succession. In some places, dates are needed: I would give the date of either Rose's death or the last son's birth. The sentence "During his time in Europe, Kilmer did write prose sketches and poetry, most notably the poem "Rouge Bouquet", which was written after the First Battalion of the 42nd Division, which had been occupying the Rouge Bouquet forest northeast of the French village of Baccarat, which at the time was a quiet sector of the front—was struck by a heavy artillery bombardment on the afternoon of March 12, 1918 that buried 21 men of the unit, of which 14 remained entombed." is too long and complicated, and should be simplified and perhaps split into two.

    The Works section needs some sort of introduction - at first I thought the article was over and this a list at the end. Some might argue the section on Trees (poem) be split off into its own separate article. Since there is a note not to change the text of the poem, should the subsequent changes be discussed? The section on Criticism and influence could be longer (Chesterton and Belloc could be here) and needs refs. Some might be interested in a few sentences on what happened to Kilmer's family after his death. Since Rouge Bouquet is his second best known poem and mentioned in the article, would some more mention of it be helpful (quote some of it, criticisms, comparison to other WWI poems)? Also it could be on Wikisource (the other poem there is not discussed here), now I see at least some of it is on Wikiquote. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch 03:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • First reply: The reason for the note regarding text of trees, this was here before I worked on the article and aside from moving editions changing the word "prest" in the orignal to "pressed" there are no other "official" modified versions of the poem. Chiefly, from what I've seen, the reason for the "don't change the text" was because people (most often anonymous jerkoffs) were vandalizing the poem by inserting various vulgar parodies. I'll be responding to your other concerns later tonight. Thanks for the thorough copy-edit and some pretty good ideas. —ExplorerCDT 03:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Second reply: I've de-italicised the quotations. I do ask further, should the text of the poem "Trees" be similarly de-italicised? I've pre-emptively de-italicised the poem text. Regarding the poem, I've thought about splitting it off to a new article, but I've been racked with indecision. There are as many good reasons to split it off as there are reasons to keep it here. I have no clue what to do with it or whether something really needs to be done. The remainder of your comments will be addressed as per your suggestions. I sincerely appreciate your work and your ideas. —ExplorerCDT 23:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, I was not watching this page. My reading of the MOS is that the poem text should also not be italicized. If you think it should, keep it in italics and see what they say in FAC. In addition to possible calls to split off a Trees subarticle, there may be those who say the full text of the poem need not be given here or there (if they do say so, they will also likely say "That's what Wikisource is for"). If the poem is split off into its own article, you might want to think about what to put in the main article (as a briefer version of the subarticle is left behind). You might also want to think about what lines of the poem could be cited if the whole can not be. Just a word of warning, if there is an edit war going on, the article will not make it in FAC (as it must be stable). Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch 04:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prospect Park Zoo

This is the first peer review request for this article, which covers the wildlife conservation center in Prospect Park, Brooklyn, New York City. After rewrites by myself and others about a year ago, it has been reasonably stable and is possibly at it's endgame in terms of contributions by the local editing community. In other words, familiarity may be blinding us to obvious flaws. I, as a significant contributor, would like this article to reach Wikipedia:Good articles status, and feel a peer review would be the most appropriate at this stage. Constructive comments (personal and automated) that help in this respect would be highly appreciated. In particular, I am seeking guidance on balance: are the discussions on history and the present day facility in good proportion with one another? Thank you in advance to all. Gosgood 18:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

aviper2k7's comments

Headers should be lowercased per WP:MOS++aviper2k7++ 21:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cburnett's comments

I would recommend the following:

  • More fields in the infobox filled in, in particular:
    • Coordinates
    • Logo
    • # of animals, # of species
  • Great deal of the article is focus on the history and facilities. More on the animals and exhibits needed (it is a zoo after all) than the current "The zoo today" section
  • Any research they do there?
    • Any notable discoveries or new species discoveries?
  • Any rides or features? Train, tram, sky chair?
  • Any education programs?
  • More pictures
  • Any (annual) special events?
  • Any notable animals? (Either by species or name or whatever)

Cburnett 23:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ginkgo100's comments

  • The refs should consistently use the citation templates for a uniform format.
  • More photographs would be helpful, particularly a view of the entrance.
  • The article needs more wikilinks & copy-editing
  • The Construction of the Prospect Park Zoo section needs refs.
  • The Renovation section needs expansion.
  • Needs more information on exhibits, notable animals, programs, etc. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Zoo#Guidelines is a good set of guidelines.
Hope these comments help! --Ginkgo100 talk 19:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To do list

These are all very useful. I've set up a list of items to do, based on these comments, some of my own observations, and the criteria for a good article. It's located on the article talk page. Thank you all for your quick and comprehensive responses. Gosgood 10:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Draft

I have a draft in my sandbox implementing the reviewers suggestions: User:Gosgood/Sandbox|Prospect Park Zoo (Draft). It is rather more done at the top than at the bottom; comments welcome. — Gosgood 00:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Release

I have merged the main article and my sandbox draft into a new version of the article. If reviewers have a moment to look (and comment (and edit)), I'd much appreciate it. Thanks! Gosgood 18:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with the changes. Good work! Cburnett 21:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The Update

Cheers for the update Well Done Keep Up The Good Work.CheetahKeeper 00:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Wilkins

I would like feedback on whether the section I have marked as dubious should be removed or not. I am by no means an expert on blues music, I only know what I have read on the relationship between the song "Catfish Blues" by Robert Petway and "Rollin' Stone" by Muddy Waters. No other site mentioned the Robert Wilkins song, so I'm inclined to think that there is no connection between "Rolling Stone" and "Rollin' Stone". However, as I mentioned in the talk section, there is a lot of confusion and ambiguity within the early history of the blues itself, so I would rather be proven wrong (by a credible source) then to just delete the fact from the wiki article. If nothing else, I would like a peer review to confirm for me that I should just remove it. But once again, I wanted to give the article the burden of proof before I just removed something I couldn't verify.Crazytonyi 08:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Turk

Completely rewritten, source-o-riffic, I'm looking to get this to featured level. To do list involves diversifying a few sources and fixing up the "see also" area, perhaps adding an external link/further reading area with the texts I don't end up using for the article. Any other help is very appreciated. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its very good. Try to wrtie the main section of the article like no one read the introduction, so you should reintroduce Wolfgang von Kempelen in the Construction section. I think the sentence that explains how the Turk's operator knew which piece was moved needs more clarification. I'm not sure I understand how he could tell the magnets apart. Also, is there any information how and when the general public learned of how the Turk worked? Was it when it was put on display at the museum? Those are the only problems I noticed. (I know how Frederick the Great felt, I would have been very dissapointed too.) Medvedenko 17:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent input, thanks. I'll add more about Kempelen, the operator, and the magnets. As for how the general public learned, good question. I'll have to look to see if there's any info on it that I missed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps too many red links in some sections. Try to create stubs for the really notable ones and do not link the rest. --Ioannes Pragensis 14:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on that. I've got one more section to complete, and then the redlinks'll start getting chopped down. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AnonEMouse's comments

I'm taking the liberty of comandeering a subsection of my own, first, since my review experience shows that these are helpful to deal with one person's comments at a time, and second, since I suspect my comments may be voluminous.

  • Red links - what Ioannes said. I think a few could be all right, but you have dozens.
    • Indeed. I will be revisiting them before taking it to the next step.
  • In any case, you need a few more words about Pelletier and the illusion that inspired the thing. Was he a magician sawing a lady in half in a big box? A medium with someone hidden under a table rapping? Something completely different? "An exchange" - meaning someone had a friendly discussion, an argument, a fistfight, or an insult followed by slaps with a glove and pistols at dawn? With Pelletier, or with someone else? If you could give a date for the performance that would be interesting too, showing how long it took the baron from the initial impetus to invent and build the thing.
    • Honestly, not sure. Historical documentation that I've tracked down either hasn't logged the act or hasn't felt it was important enough to mention. The Standage book goes into a lot of unsourced speculation, but I hate to rely on that alone.
  • 3.5 feet long, 2 feet ... - per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Units_of_measurement, you want at least a conversion to SI units.
  • duc de Bouillon - capital D, perhaps?
    • Not sure. It hasn't been capitalized where I saw it first, but it may be a mistake.
  • "The Turk also had the ability, using a letter board, to converse with spectators." -> "The Turk also had the ability to converse with spectators using a letter board." Unnecessarily complex.
    • Similarly, but more so: "Kempelen's son, sometime before 1808, decided to attempt to sell the machine to Johann Nepomuk Mälzel, a Bavarian musician with an interest in various machines and devices, including patenting the metronome, who had attempted to purchase the Turk once before, prior to Wolfgang von Kempelen's death.". Ack!
      • Consistently a problem with me. Will fix shortly.
Reorder the second clause first again to get rid of a comma, but I'd also recommend breaking it into several sentences. Either stop after "metronome" and restart, or reorder to something like: "Sometime before 1808, Kempelen's son decided to attempt to sell the machine to Johann Nepomuk Mälzel, who had attempted to purchase the Turk once before, prior to Wolfgang von Kempelen's death. Mälzel was a Bavarian musician with an interest in various machines and devices, including patenting a metronome." Note that he didn't patent "the" metronome, just a variant.
  • Magnets - several places in the article go on about The Turk being unaffected by outside magnets. Can you explain if it really did use magnets on the inside, why wasn't it affected?
    • I'll double check the article. It certainly used magnets, but if there's question, I'm not clear about it.
  • "About the box, Karl Gottlieb von Windisch wrote..." and then goes on to give a citation that has nothing to do with the box!
    • Yup, I realize my error. Fixed.
  • "The director, who's identity" -> whose [17]
    • Bah.
  • "Questions asked and answered by the Turk included his age" -> "its", surely
    • But the figure was male! (yup, fixed)
  • "a lawyer named Mr. Bernard who was a second rank in chess ability." - what's a second rank? Needs at least a link to another article explaining what that is.
    • Still working on a proper link/description on this one.
  • "...contradict eachother.[4]" Needsaspace.
    • Got it.
  • "He was quickly defeated, with observations from the match stating ..." The match itself observed? Spectators? The defeated player himself?
    • Good catch, fixed.
  • 26 March 1804: per WP:DATE needs links.
    • Got it.
  • "According to Mälzel, his goal was..." where was Maelzel quoted? I would think this needs a reference.
    • Referenced at the end of the paragraph, as the entire paragraph uses one source. If clarity is necessary, I don't mind using the same reference twice in a paragraph, but I figured not to overdo it.
  • "According to Bradley Ewart in his book Chess: Man vs. Machine, the Turk sat at its cabinet, and Bonaparte at a chess table in a roped off area that he was not allowed to cross into." Who was not allowed to cross into? Bonaparte? Wasn't he already inside the area? Ewart? Was he there? Surely not the Turk?
    • Not reworded yet, but I'll take a closer look at this. I see the confusion, there's a lot going on there.
  • Venise - link to Venice if he was really its prince? I didn't read that article enough - if it was just a symbolic title, like Prince of Wales not really being in charge of Wales, then mention that Beuharnais was Napoleonic general and Napoleon's adopted son, that probably explains him better in as many words.
    • I'll review this as well.
  • What is the "voice box" discussed in multiple places in the article? A speaking tube to the "director" in the machine, or something completely mechanical?
    • Frustratingly unclear.
  • Surely playing without a bishop is not called a "pawn handicap"?
    • Yeah, not putting the word "pawn" after the possessive didn't make much logical sense, did it?
  • "Mälzel in America" - he fled to avoid paying Beauharnais, because he couldn't be extradited from the US? That's strongly implied, but not stated outright, and probably should be. How about his 1828 return to Europe - did he pay off the debt in the meantime, or did he just avoid Beauharnais?
    • To the former, it isn't stated outright. One could assume that, but then we're veering into bad territory there. As for the latter, same deal - there's no indication he paid his debt, and one assumed he avoided his debtor, but I can't verify it.
  • If Poe's "Maelzel's Chess Player" is published in 1836, it's public domain now, and must be online somewhere. If it's so famous, a direct link to a copy or two would be useful. I found this [18] but it's not necessarily the best one, though any is better than none. You may also want to mention a bit more about Poe's fallacies, again if it really was the most influential piece on the Turk.
    • I have it linked in the references, and plan on making it an explicit external link, too. I will add some of the fallacies per your suggestion.
  • Poe seems to harp a bit on the fact that Maelzel never claimed the Turk was fully an automaton, but rather would say nothing about it, to avoid lying. If that's so, that would be useful to state outright in the article, otherwise it implies the opposite in several places. Did Kempelen behave the same way?
    • Same as above.
  • "In Cuba, Schlumberger passed away of yellow fever, taking away Mälzel's best director of the machine. Dejected, he took the machine back to Philadelphia and made a second visit to Havana. Mälzel would never make it back to Philadelphia, passing away at sea in 1838 at age 66." A bit confusing - Maelzel took the machine back to Philadelphia but would never make it back to Philadelphia?
    • Yeah, I see what you're saying. I'll reword this soon, too.
  • "... fell into the hands of John Ohl, a businessman and friend of Mälzel. He attempted to sell the Turk, but ultimately purchased the machine for $400 due to low bidding." What? "fell into the hands of" implies he owned it, why did he have to purchase it? Was he merely the executor of the estate?
    • The latter, the executor, per se. Will clarify once I have the correct situation verified.
  • "Only when Dr. John Kearsley Mitchell ... approached Ohl did the Turk change hands again." I hate to say this, but this needs yet another comma after "Ohl". I can't immediately think of a cleaner rewrite.
    • I'll review it.
  • "July 5 1854" comma before year.
    • Thanks, fixed.
  • "The machine was presented in a similar way to how Kempelen would, except for a change on the control of the machine, which was left to a computer." First, "on" -> "in", I believe. But second, I'd suggest scrapping the whole second half of the sentence. The presentation could have been similar, but the machine itself was completely different - surely it's didn't use a pegboard, or pantograph, or strings? It may have used magnets, but probably in a different way, etc. I'd just end the sentence after "would".
    • The intent with this sentence was that the machine was done the same way, except that there was no one inside the machine, instead allowing a computer to control the game and the mechanism. Thoughts?
  • A link to The Crooked Hinge would seem at least a useful "see also". You may even want to write a sentence or two about it.
    • Fascinating, never noticed this until now. Thanks for the heads up, I want to read it now, too.
  • "Future inspiration" - Reverend doesn't need a link, it's in no way relevant to the article. On the other hand, adding the word "inventor" or "scientist" before Charles Wheatstone would be useful (not necessarily linked, though), as otherwise someone doesn't know why he would be important. AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Threshing-board

This article was recently the Wikipedia:Spanish Translation of the Week. The article was translated in its entirety from the article trillo, which is a featured article on the Spanish wikipedia.

Now that the article has been translated, it would be helpful to have a fresh set of eyes look it over - especially people who have not read the corresponding article in Spanish and therefore do not already know what it is trying to say.

We are looking for any advice on how to improve the article. Given the high quality of the original article, it should be possible to improve this to a good article and eventually to a featured article. Here are a few topics for possible comments, but feel free to comment on other things as well:
1) general comprehensability to people new to the topic
2) organization
3) formatting of references / other technical issues
4) material that might be better off removed
5) You will notice that the article has a heavy emphasis on Spain. It would be better to make the article more balanced, but the editors are not familiar with threshing-boards in other countries, so it will be somewhat difficult to add more information about other countries. Still, any specific suggestions on how to add more geographical balance would be much appreaciated.
--Fagles 19:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to figure out how to shrink the images and see what's wrong with the section headings. Fagles 23:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. It's now gone forever. Fagles 23:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you to SandyGeorgia for the excellent suggestions and improvements. I think we have addressed all the issues that were raised. Any additional advice from peer reviewers would be much appreciated. Fagles 02:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Iron Maiden

This article has formerly been a Featured Article and has appeared on the main page in 2005. It recently lost its FA status. Since then, it has undergone a lot of cleanup, and I think it is now closer to current FA standards; however, it has also attracted a certain amount of additional original research, leading me to slap several citation tags on it. I'd like to see the article restored to its former glory and would appreciate any comments on what should now be done. Note that I am far from being a main author of this; I have a vague interest in the subject matter and arguably some copyediting skills, but that's all. I'd need a lot of help in areas such as referencing, but my suspicion is that some of the unreferenced claims should simply be deleted. Comments? Metamagician3000 06:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Good luck. I added some of the references from Maiden's official bio during the FAR process and tried improving the article, but a few editors always prove unhelpful on this article. The Seventh of a Seventh Son is one example - yes it is a concept album, but it was by no means based on a specific book. LuciferMorgan 19:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment By the way, if there's anything else I can use from the book to cite etc. , I'll do so. The main problem in the article is the damn commentary on each album - ie. more accessible, darker etc. - this is all original research. What wouldn't be original research though is if the article stated something like "Metal Hammer commented that the album ...., while Kerrang thought ...." This would go a long way to improving the article and ridding of the original research. LuciferMorgan 19:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nod. Nod. This aspect may be very difficult to clean up, because I'm sure the people who wrote it in that way are not going to accept excisions lightly ... and I, for one, don't have the grasp of the review literature sources to put in citations like that. My more immediate worry was blatantly unsourceable stuff, such as the well-intentioned people who keep wanting to put in what they heard someone say onstage at a concert. This article may be hard to rescue, but it's a shame because it's so good in other ways. Metamagician3000 00:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentsThe third paragraph in the lead, is too short and surely can be re-worded and merged with another.
  • The fourth paragraph is all about the bands mascot, is this about Maiden or Eddie?.
  • Possibly with the titles you could add years like (1982-1985) so it's clear what era it's talking about, this is done on almost all band FAs.
  • Iron Maiden's eponymous 1980 release, Iron Maiden, made number 4 on the UK charts in its first week of release, "made number 4" how about debuted
  • The images need fair use rationales
  • The picture in the infobox, will fail the fair use criteria #1, that "no free alternative is available" also 3/5 of the image is sky.
  • Reference 21 has a space
  • Iron Maiden were named the third best metal band of all time on VH1 Classic: Top 20 Metal Bands. [1] external link
  • "Classic Line-up" is POV
  • Personnel you have "For a complete list, see List of Iron Maiden band members" then the first link under 'See also' is a link to the band members, also the last link under see also is an external jump
  • Bruce Dickinson website, Paul Di'anno (former vocalist) website. This is about the band as a whole not a single member. Add a link to their Myspace(if they have one), last.fm or Billboard.com
  • One of the most if not the most influential metal bands ever, maybe under legacy you can write some bands they influenced

Goodluck with this, and finding all those citations. M3tal H3ad 03:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
  • As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • allege
    • apparently
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: behaviour (B) (American: behavior), organize (A) (British: organise), recognise (B) (American: recognize), criticize (A) (British: criticise), ization (A) (British: isation).
  • Please provide citations for all of the {{fact}}s.
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Automated review, M3tal H3ad 09:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black Marsh

I've been developing this article for some time, following recommendations from Wikiproject Elder Scrolls, a previous Peer Review, and a Good Article nomination. The article is now a Good Article, and as the other sources have run dry in recommendations, I'd like to request comments here before moving forward. Any criticism or comment is welcome. Thank you. Geuiwogbil 05:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, JACOPLANE • 2007-01-11 15:12

Star Cops

I feel I've taken this article as far as I can go with it on my own and at this stage would appreciate some constructive feedback. Joe King 17:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The cast should be put in their own section, without the table. - Peregrine Fisher 20:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since the cast are already listed in the infobox, the principal characters section and the episode guide, I fail to see what value creating a new section to an already long article adds.
Joe King 19:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about the cast in the episode guide. Formatting it as a giant header doesn't seem the right way. If it's already listed two other times, maybe just remove it. - Peregrine Fisher 19:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see what you mean now. You may be right. Actually, the cast and crew info in the episode guide might be overkill for an encyclopaedia article and there are resources like IMDB that do this sort of thing already. Let me have a think for a while before I decide what to do. Joe King 12:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
... from User:MatthewFenton
The article reads very nicely, good work, and it's mostly formatted very well, though I do suggest aligning the cast photo to the right, and both images require fair use rationales (Wikipedia:Image_description_page#Fair_use_rationale). Other then that it was an enjoyable read, you should also consider using {{UK}} for the country variable within the infobox. Very nice article. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Made those changes. Thanks very much for your kind words. Joe King 19:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bonny Hicks

Please provide perspective as to what this article may yet need to become a Good Article per Wikipedia:What is a good article?. Thanks! CyberAnth 07:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AC/DC remasters

Hi, I think this article can be a Featured list soon, but first I want to know if it can be improved in any way. Thanks. No-Bullet (Talk • Contribs) 05:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magicians in fantasy

Just generally: what needs to be done to improve the article? Goldfritha 03:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess highlighting their development in literature. Earthsea was important as I think it would have been the first book where a wizard was the 'hero' character. Other early roles had them more avuncular, like T.H. White's Merlin and Tolkien's Gandalf Cas Liber 09:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, may have to do some more research on that -- I put something of that under "Character function." Do you think it should be a separate section? Goldfritha 01:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That section has been expanded. Goldfritha 05:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeast

This recently was voted for the article improvement drive and many good additions have been made. I hope now that some people can peer review this article to give us an idea of what still needs to be done. I would very much appreciate any comments. Benbread 02:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Benbread. (Any relation between your username and the subject matter? Never mind). I looked over the article and here are some thoughts from a non-expert in the subject matter.
    • Per Wikipedia's Manual of Style (Lead Section), the lead section should act as a concise, easy-to-read summary of the entire article. It should not contain information that is not discussed to a greater extent elsewhere in the article. One reader may read the lead section just to get a quick overview of the subject matter, another may read the entire article.
    • "The term yeast is commonly used to refer to the species Saccharomyces cerevisiae..." sounds really awkward, and in my opinion shouldn't be in the lead, much less the second sentence of the article. "Is commonly used" also falls under "weasel words" that you should avoid.
    • The organization of the article seems bit awkward to me, as well. Jumping right from the lead paragraph into reproduction makes me feel like something else is missing. Physical description? Kind of hard with single-celled organisms. Habitat? Under what types of conditions do yeast live? Does a single yeast cell live for 50 years? 5 seconds? I'm kind of reaching here, but these are some of the basic questions that I'm left with after reading the article. I'd like to see more of the basics.
    • The reproduction section needs expanding. The first paragraph is ok, although I don't understand "The bud can develop on different parts of the parent cell depending on the genus of the yeast". Different parts of the cell? Explain, using examples, if possible. The second paragraph mentions high stress conditions but doesn't elaborate on what stresses a yeast cell. It also talks about diploid and haploid yeast cells with no mention of why certain cells would be haploid or dipoid, nor does it mention the process of conjugation. Finally, what happens after the spores are formed? The third paragraph needs expanding as well. Tell me why that is important or interesting. Discuss in a sentence or two what the difference is between budding and binary fission so I don't have to go into each of those articles and figure it out myself.
    • The growth section, in contrast, needs the language to be simplified somewhat. Write to express, not to impress, one professor once told me, and that concept definitely applies to the first sentence of this section. Why use "obligately aerobic" and "facultatively anaerobic" when you can describe what those terms mean in just a sentence or two more? Also, "In the absence of oxygen, fermentative yeasts produce their energy by converting carbohydrates into carbon dioxide and ethanol (alcohol) or lactic acid" is a misleading oversimplification, similar to claiming that automobiles get the energy to operate by converting hydrocarbons into water vapor and carbon dioxide. You've simply listed the starting and ending products of an extended chemical reaction without discussing any of the energy transfer involved. The second paragraph is just a chemical reaction that I'm not sure is relevant to your article for the same reason, and omits any mention of fermentation into lactate. I'm not sure how the third and fourth paragraphs fit into a section entitled "growth".
    • The "uses" section seems somewhat choppy and disorganized. The "alcoholic beverages" section contains just one sentence, yet there are separate sections on beer and wine. Don't Distilled beverages use yeasts in the first parts of the process as well?
    • The external links section needs cleanup, per WP:EL.
    • The talk page mentions a request for a history of the use and culture of yeast, which I think would be a very important addition to the article.
  • I hope this is helpful and not overly critical. Obviously, a considerable amount of time and energy has been invested in this article so far and it's one that I'd like to see improved to a featured article some day. Neil916 (Talk) 08:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


David.Throop 18:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GameFAQs

We're hoping to eventually get this to FA. Some things that I think need specifically looked at: the lead section, the Contests section (how to organize this information, expanding/cutting, etc), and use of images within the article. Also, I've been looking at Gmail and wondering whether the GameFAQs article should have a similar "competition" section. --- RockMFR 02:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The commercial strategy guides should be expanded on. Were the writers paid? Sales? Revenue? Profit? Reception? What country or area were they released, or were they in a specific store? This is just a small suggestion, I'll provide more tomorrow. --TheEmulatorGuy 09:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is more info known about this, but unfortunately most of it comes from message boards (which really aren't reliable). The authors were paid $500 each. Sales, revenue, profit, reception completely unknown. From my own first-hand knowledge, I know they were sold in some parts of the United States at various stores. --- RockMFR 19:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're correct, most of it probably doesn't exist. However, what I've found out: edited by Corey Cohen [19], The Ultimate PS2 Strategy Guide reached a sales rank of at least #418,303[20], and The Ultimate XBox Strategy Guide reached a sales rank of at least #1,035,875.[21] Either way, there is some information out there you can expand on, albeit not much. --TheEmulatorGuy 21:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Editor name added, thanks (unfortunately I don't own hard copies of these guides). The sales data doesn't seem very useful and/or reliable. I imagine it was all taken from amazon, but ranks that low don't give much information. --- RockMFR 21:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that the FAQs section needs to be expanded. Adding in something about how the contributions system works, the prolific contributors section, or something of that nature wuold be helpful. --Wizardman 17:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a brief mention of the contributor recognition section. I'm not sure what could be added about the contribution system itself that would be encyclopedic. --- RockMFR 23:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see how a competition section would work. Gmail is clearly in direct competition with other sites. I believe it's also a commercial service (it sells its AdSense ads), and of course Hotmail and Yahoo also sell special upgraded services as well. But GF is not commercial, at least in the same sense; FAQs are free, there aren't any premium features or anything. I'm not sure how you could say how, say, Cheat CC is competing with GF when both sites don't charge visitors to view FAQs (my apologies if CCC does charge). Hbdragon88 17:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated suggestions from AndyZ's peerreviewer

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.

Kumi Koda

I am looking to make this article informative to all interested in this singer. In order to accomplish that, I would like to know what changes I should make to the article, whether I should leave out certain details, reorganize the article, etc. Also, I would like to know what I can do for events in her career that were not documented by news sources (just due to her being virtually unknown).

-XaiTerran 02:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well documented, well linked to the other wikipedia entries; no comments there. Biography needs improvement, as she would have been 9 years old in 3rd grade (1989) and the biography doesn't resume until 2000. One question arrose for me while I was reading the article: Why did producers stick with her even though her singles continually flopped? -- Nictius 14:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you! Not much is actually known about her before her big rise to stardom in 2005. We actually don't know well the details of her life; the biography about her life before being a singer is pretty much a summary of a show that did a special documentary on her life. And your question is a good question. We don't know either. It's been asked by many, many people. -XaiTerran 20:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I figured that might be the case, as I did a some light googling to see if I could find the info myself, no luck though. Maybe in the biography put a few lines about the gap and that the info is unknown? That way to the unfamiliar reader, the gap won't appear as hole or missing information. I read the Ayumi Hamasaki article and compared the two biography sections. So, that is the standard I was/am holding this article too. Good luck! -- Nictius 08:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend finding someone to do a thorough copyedit of the article. There are a lot of minor problems with the writing. For example, I see at least one sentence fragment, album articles should be italicized (without quotation marks), and one of the headers is improperly spelled (US should be U.S.). Per WP:TRIV, the trivia section should be scrapped, and any useful information in it should moved to the main text of the article. Any fair use images on the page need fair use rationales (see WP:FURG for information on how to do that). —ShadowHalo 23:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After just a brief look at it, I would say that the article is over-illustrated. Is it really necessary to include every album cover? How about just her best selling/critically aclaimed ones? Also the end of the article is just a lot of big lists. I don't know how other musician articles avoid this, but I advise you check some Featured Articles that feature musicians to get an idea. Nice work though. Keep it up! Bobo12345 05:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Current events/Canada

The Canadian Current Events portal as part of the Portal:Current events is a simple portal, but has the notability and finese to be a featured portal considering its purpose. Lily Towerstalk 09:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newport Aquarium

  • I've started to add to this article, however I can't find enough original research. Is there anyone else that knows the specs of the building. Furthermore, I still think the article words like spam, although I have cleaned it up a bit. Man it could use some pictures too. Stubbleboy 00:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archives

  1. ^ See footnote
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review&oldid=102983544"